Tag: decline and fall

Brainstorm with Roosh

VOX: Now, recently you’ve begun talking a bit more about spirituality, which I have to say strikes me as a little strange coming as it does from a notoriously hedonistic agnostic individual. What is the source of this shift in emphasis? Is it related to what you are talking about?

ROOSH: The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom, and only by crossing the line, by going way beyond my sexual and entertainment needs, have I seen where the line is. Most of my life I have based on the scientific way, facts and logic, but it wasn’t giving me the answers. I don’t see the answers and I see some of it is wrong. People are structuring their life on science that in 100 years, 500 years, 5,000 years, will be shown to be a joke. Just like how humans used to think the earth was flat. People right now think that just because a study came out that this is fact, but it’s not. So, what can we learn, or what is the best way to live? I think the best way to come up with that is to look at how humans have lived for thousands of years. A book like the Bible was a guide that was a manual for billions of people and it still is. It has been used for so long that maybe there is something in it that I should look at. So, I am reading it now.

VOX: It will probably astonish thousands of people to hear that! Whether you are talking about the Bible, the Ancient Greeks, or Heian Japan, there is an awful lot of wisdom to be found there simply because they lived. We don’t need to reinvent every single thought about the wheel.

ROOSH: What I don’t get is why modern Western culture has been so quick to throw all that away. Throwing everything away for this experimental way to live. I am reading some of the old stuff and it makes sense. It makes sense! And I look at what the media and the universities are showing us now and I see Bruce Jenner being celebrated for being mentally ill, and I think I am going insane here! It doesn’t make sense why this is happening. We are living in a weird time and it scares me. I’m not even there in the USA and I am thinking that maybe on the ground it is not that bad, but then I go there to visit and it is that bad. People are now reciting talking points that five years ago I would have said are weird. Now it is part of the general audience and in how they act. Now people are calling everything sexist. I remember in the US last year, I heard a woman use the word microaggression and I thought that was a joke the first time I heard it. Now it is becoming common and I am thinking, man, I don’t know how it is getting here and I wish I could stop it but I can’t. (Laughs) What we have to do as men is hold on. This is not going to end well.



If you’re interested in obtaining a copy of the transcript, it is now available at Castalia House. If you are interested in attending tomorrow night’s member’s only event, you can sign up as an annual or monthly member.

Prediction: collapse by 2040

I think the collapse will begin seven years sooner, myself:

New scientific models supported by the British government’s Foreign Office show that if we don’t change course, in less than three decades industrial civilisation will essentially collapse due to catastrophic food shortages, triggered by a combination of climate change, water scarcity, energy crisis, and political instability.

Before you panic, the good news is that the scientists behind the model don’t believe it’s predictive. The model does not account for the reality that people will react to escalating crises by changing behavior and policies.

But even so, it’s a sobering wake-up call, which shows that business-as-usual guarantees the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it: our current way of life is not sustainable.

“The financial and economic system is exposed to catastrophic short-term risks that the system cannot address in its current form,” Dr. Jones told us.

He described GRO’s use of the Agent-Based Model to capture and simulate the multiple factors that led to the 2011 Arab Spring events.

By successfully modeling the “impact of climate-induced drought on crop failures and the ensuing impact on food prices,” he said, the model can then be recalibrated to “experiment with different scenarios.”

    “We ran the model forward to the year 2040, along a business-as-usual trajectory based on ‘do-nothing’ trends?—?that is, without any feedback loops that would change the underlying trend. The results show that based on plausible climate trends, and a total failure to change course, the global food supply system would face catastrophic losses, and an unprecedented epidemic of food riots. In this scenario, global society essentially collapses as food production falls permanently short of consumption.”

Another steering committee member raised their hand: “So is this going to happen? Is this a forecast?”

“No,” said Jones. “This scenario is based on simply running the model forward. The model is a short-term model. It’s not designed to run this long, as in the real world, trends are always likely to change, whether for better or worse.”

“Okay, but what you’re saying is that if there is no change in current trends, then this is the outcome?” continued the questioner.

Jones nodded with a half-smile. “Yes,” he said quietly.

In other words, simply running the Agent-Based Model forward cannot generate a reliable forecast of the future. For instance, no one anticipated the pace at which solar and wind energy would become cost-competitive with fossil fuels. And the fact that governments and insurers are now beginning to scope such risks, and explore ways of responding, shows how growing awareness of the risks has the potential to trigger change.

Whether that change is big enough to avoid or mitigate the worst is another question. Either way, the model does prove in no uncertain terms that present-day policies are utterly bankrupt.

The two main factors being left out of the equation are mass migration and war, which are essentially the same thing, the latter being a consequence of the former. As Martin van Creveld has repeatedly observed, we are in a post-Trinitarian War environment; neither the Military nor the State is relevant any more. War is no longer State vs State, but Tribe vs Tribe.

These Tribes can be based on ideology, nationality, race, or religion, or any combination therein. They are identity-tribes. The Islamic State is an amalgamation of ideology and religion whereas the Charleston shootings were purely based on race. This is not asymmetric war as it is conventionally understood, but transgeographical, post-Trinitarian identitarian war. Battlefields, lines, and even armies are irrelevant in this new form of warfare, as the identity tribes to which the soldiers are loyal are more self-defined than externally bestowed.

But the fact that the current system of industrial civilization cannot be expected to survive as it is past 2040 is not insignificant. Yes, people will change their behavior in expectation of it, but if history is a reliable guide, most of those changes will increase the instability of the system, not decrease it.

Before you can save civilization

You must first save yourself and help your fellow men do the same:

Benedict believed that idleness was the enemy of the soul. For the 21 st century layman, there have never been more opportunities for idleness. How many men do we know who constantly read articles on sites like Return of Kings but never actually do anything with what they’ve learned? How many of our brothers spend their free time drinking to excess, eating Doritos, playing video games, and generally wasting their lives away?

Aristotle, and later Saint Thomas Aquinas, described virtue as good habits. The virtuous man becomes that way by repeatedly doing good things. Those of us who have no plans to be monks can still derive much benefit from following a similar rule. Develop a set time for going to the gym, or reading good books, or engaging in prayer or meditation.

The idea behind monastic life is it is easier to live a disciplined life when we have friends who share the same goals and avoid those who do not. We can offer support to one another when we inevitably experience setbacks and failures. That is one of the great lessons offered by the Rule: be patient with yourself and others as you work toward your goals. Rome wasn’t built or destroyed in a day.

It’s worth noting that Benedict had no intention of saving Western civilization from itself.

Not the sort of thing one would normally expect to see on Return of Kings. It looks as if Roosh is indeed serious about exploring spirituality and eucivicism. And Beefy is right, too many conservatives are not only in love with the idea of noble defeat, but expect instant victory in a war without end.

Descent into darkness

 VDH warns of the end of an age:

History is not static and it does not progress linearly.  There was more free speech and unimpeded expression in 5th-century
Athens than in Western Europe between 1934-45, or in Eastern Europe
during 1946-1989. An American could speak his mind more freely in 1970
than now. Many in the United States had naively believed that the
Enlightenment, the U.S. Constitution, and over two centuries of American
customs and traditions had guaranteed that Americans could always take
for granted free speech and unfettered inquiry.

That is an ahistorical assumption. The wish to silence, censor, and
impede thought is just as strong a human emotion as the desire for free
expression — especially when censorship is cloaked in rhetoric about
fairness, equality, justice, and all the other euphemisms for not
allowing the free promulgation of ideas.

George Orwell devoted his later years to warning us that while the
fascist method of destroying free expression was easily identified
(albeit only with difficulty combatted), the leftwing totalitarian
impulse to squelch unpopular speech was far harder to resist — couched
as it was in sloganeering about the “people” and “social justice.” 

He’s right. The descent into the Dark Ages will not end well. It never has in the past. We must fight the barbarians at every step, within and without, because even though we will probably lose, we will preserve the seeds from which future civilizations will grow.

The end of the Diaspora

Martin van Creveld anticipates it. The Learned Elders of Wye see it. David Goldberg sees it. As does Rich Cohen:

The horror of the Holocaust purchased us a 70-year vacation from history, though we didn’t know it. We believed the world had changed, as had human nature. Jews remained distinct in the new dispensation, but in a good way—a near-at-hand exotic, a symbol of exile, which we were told was the natural state of modern man. For perhaps the only time in history, you might actually want to be a Jew. Because of the close families and good husbands and yada yada. Saul Bellow, Phillip Roth, Mel Brooks. To those of us who came of age in these years, the future seemed like it would be more of the same, the present carried on forever.

We were wrong.

If you go online and read the comments on any story about Israel or George Soros or search certain terms on Twitter, you begin to feel the golden age of the American Jews was just a moment in time. Perhaps the old paranoia stirs in me, but I see ominous signs everywhere:

What changed? Well, for starters, there are just
fewer of us in proportion to the whole. Whereas Jews once constituted
five percent of America, and as much as forty percent of New York, those
numbers have shrunk. We’re perhaps thirteen percent of New York and
around two percent of the nation. In this sense, American Jews are
living with the results of their success. This is indeed the promised
land. It’s where Jews fulfilled the dream which, for many, has been to
stop being Jews and become part of the imagined whole.  Like the caboose
of a train, we’re getting smaller as we go away.

I think Cohen is leaving out three of the more important reasons for the Jewish decline. First, being the most left-leaning portion of the American electorate, Jews are disproportionately affected by the dyscivic and dysgenic consequences of their own social policies. In the traditional 1950s America they so hated, a Jewish man with abnormal inclinations would be heavily encouraged to resist them, get married, and have at least three Jewish children. In post-traditional America, such a man is encouraged to do anything from play house with another man to put on a dress, mutilate himself, and call himself Esther. But whatever non-traditional lifestyle he chooses, his line is going to end with him.

Second, as Cohen says himself, “Jews had re-imagined the nation.” Of course, they didn’t merely reimagine it, they helped remake it more to their liking out of the mistaken belief that a multi-ethnic America would be better and safer for them than an Anglo-Saxon America. This is turning out to be wildly untrue, as the genteel disdain they so resented on the part of the elite White Anglo-Saxon Episcopalians is considerably milder than the way in which they regarded by nearly every immigrant group that the Jews have sought to import, from Central Americans to Eastern Europeans to Asians.

(The same is true in England, for that matter; the rise in anti-semitism in the UK isn’t merely the result of Muslim immigration, but Polish immigration as well. Until I moved to Europe, I had no idea that Poles tend to dislike Jews even more than they dislike Russians and Communists. I’m not sure they entirely distinguish between the three.)

The third is that a number of elite Jews in America have increasingly attempted to use America’s military on behalf of Israel’s foreign policy. This is increasingly resented by Americans across the political spectrum; for example, neither Right nor Left is even remotely interested in invading Iran as the neocons have been demanding for the last 13 years. Their efforts have not yet boomeranged, as Dr. van Creveld fears, but at some point they most likely will if they do not cease.

I don’t see it getting as bad for American Jews as it will for their few remaining European cousins, mostly because Americans are much less ethno-nationalistic and there is considerably more space. But I do think Cohen is correct in anticipating the significant decline of Jewish influence in America. Because, at the end of the day, Israel is the Jewish nation and the idea of the functional multi-ethnic society is not long for this world.

Of course, the idea was always bound to fail. It was obvious, on the basis of the assumption on which the belief was founded: “We believed the world had changed, as had human nature.” The world may have changed, for a time, but it will always change again. Human nature, on the other hand, doesn’t. 

Post-evolutionary Man

Roosh not only observes that natural selection no longer applies to human evolution, but concludes that this indicates the inapplicability of the evo psyche model to human behavior:

Anti-evolutionary behaviors should have been weeded out of the gene pool according to the idea of natural selection, but the more I looked around, the more I saw nothing but my own behavior, of people who were actually frightened to death about being a parent even though they were healthy and could afford to raise children. In fact, the sum of Western ideologies seem aimed to specifically halt human reproduction.

Western people are structuring their lives in deliberate ways to not reproduce at all and where their cherished hedonistic lifestyles would be greatly harmed if children entered the picture, and while it’s easy to use evolutionary theory in describing which man a woman chooses to have sex with, how can that possibly be correct if the man used condoms or the woman used birth control? Darwin’s theory refers to reproduction, not recreational sex and definitely not a prolonged period of sterile sport fucking, which has no benefit to the genes of the “athlete.” Having an explanation for why a girl on birth control went home with the “alpha male” after meeting him in the club has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection, since they both knew that no child would result and used the full force of their consciousness to prevent the creation of life. If reproduction was the purposefully blocked intent, evolution was not present during the sex event….

We must therefore conclude, with logic and rationale, that evolution is so flawed at explaining modern human reproductive
behavior (and not merely casual sex where reproduction was never the
intent), that evolution is not an observable or correct principle for
human beings living in Westernized nations. We must discard evolutionary
theory as applying to all humans through the mechanism of natural
selection and begin a search for a new explanation that explains our
current biological behavior.

Evolution may have been the correct theory for a window of human
existence, but that window has now closed and theories for
post-evolutionary man, one in which there is no struggle for survival
and where the strongest of the species are not reproducing, must be
devised.

Even if we were to concede that we got here through the process of
evolution from a primordial soup, and that our brains are the result of
it, these brains are now in a modern environment which has tripwired,
hijacked, or corrupted any applicable evolutionary program. We have
become one with the plugged-in cosmopolitan borg, and that regardless of
the process that caused us to come about, that process is no longer in
effect and a new process, yet to be described or understood, is
manifesting itself throughout humanity and shattering Darwin’s “survive
and reproduce” model.

I never bought into either the natural selection explanation for human evolution or the evo psych explanation for human behavior, but it is fascinating to see other high-caliber thinkers like Roosh who did beginning to reach similar conclusions.

Needless to say, this is one of the many topics we will be discussing at next week’s open Brainstorm event. There are 500 290 seats left and seats can be reserved here: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5402452949014075905. But whether you’re interested in the event or not, you should definitely read the piece linked above.

Western society is now dysgenic as well as dyscivic. This means it cannot survive in its current form. Regardless of how fervently you support concepts like women’s suffrage, equality, diversity, immigration and so forth, it is important to understand that, in the long term, you are choosing them over indoor plumbing, cheap and plentiful water, airplane travel, living wages, access to high-tech medical care, and reasonably full employment.

Believe or don’t believe that you are doing it, but that is exactly the choice you are making every single day. The fact that you can’t see the brick wall looming a few miles down the road does not mean it is not there.

The end of National Review

I quit reading National Review when they canned John Derbyshire for the crime of telling the truth about race. Now that it has come out out of the marital closet, I expect considerably more people on the Right to follow suit. It is readily apparent that the difference between the liberal media and the so-called conservative media is about 20 years. And, like all homogamists, he openly lies about the way in which it utterly destroys the institution of marriage:

Finally, a word on the oft-heard claim that if we recognize same-sex marriages we’ll also have to marry siblings, and groups of a hundred and three, and adults to children, and humans to invertebrates, and so on.

Members of group relationships, whatever we may think of them, manifestly have not made the same kind of choice as have those in exclusive commitments, and so there is no equal-treatment basis for their inclusion in marriage. Remember, the equal-treatment argument we outlined above does not assert that marriage is about any kind of romantic love. It asserts that marriage is about a particular form of such love — faithfulness and exclusivity subsequent to a vow of permanent commitment — that is already partially included under traditional marriage laws. (Let us note in passing the ridiculousness of speaking of an “orientation to polygamy,” as traditionalists sometimes do, unless this means trivially that anyone might feel more than one attraction at a time, in which case we are presumably all so oriented.)

There is a sense in which the other types of relationships traditionalists scare us with, even if they were exclusive, would also not involve the same kind of choice as does a romantic commitment of two unrelated adults: They would fall short, for one or both parties, of being chosen in full freedom. In the case of family members, for example, an irrevocable and unchosen bond between the two already exists, and in that sense they cannot really give themselves to each other. That is why we see incest as a perversion of a preexisting relationship. As for a child, it does not possess a sufficiently developed mind and will with which to give consent to a sexual relationship. That is why we think such a relationship is exploitative. The specific ways in which these relationships fall short of full freedom — along with the unique intensity of sexual intimacy — in turn explain the primary harms that they intrinsically risk causing (for example, by undermining impartiality and stability within families, or by psychologically damaging children).

In any case, if you want to account for the special opprobrium we reserve for such things, you will have to offer some explanation of what is specifically wrong with them.

It’s bitterly amusing to see how a nation-in-decline congratulates itself with every step it descends into Hell and the inevitable dustbin of history. But those who refuse to learn from history are usually destined to repeat its more unpleasant lessons. Or rather, their children and grandchildren are.

There is no solution

It has largely ceased to be funny to see the demography ostriches burying their heads in the sand about the total failure of Melting Pot America, even as it rapidly disappears like a timer that’s been turned over.

YANKEE: VD thinks non westerners are too Dunb
to maintain a Republic like the U.S. When they are a majority.”

DAVID: And
non-Westerners continue to steadfastly prove him right. Look, it’s
really just this simple: if they were capable of doing so they would
have done so in their own countries. They have not, ergo, they can’t.

YANKEE: “Fine!
What’s the solution, VD? Furthermore, what’s your solution to America
housing all these blacks that you also believe Are incapable of
maintaining the U.S,?”

There is no solution. There is no shiny secular science fiction “It’s a Small World” societies in the making. There are only the inevitable historical consequences of the demographic destruction of Anglo-Saxon America, which will likely follow one of the usual paths: a) subjection and eventual elimination of minorities, b) subjection and eventual elimination of the majority, c) partition, d) ethnic subsumption. For various reasons, I expect (c) to be the most likely in the USA and (a) to be the most likely in Europe.

Before you stick your head back in the sand, keep in mind that I am a Native American, an American Indian. Some of my relatives live on a small reservation of worthless land their conquerors have permitted them to keep, with a handful of people who know how to speak a language that is now almost entirely extinct. So, don’t tell me that the survival of your people, of your traditions, or of your way of life is a given. Because I can assure you, they most certainly are not.

The future belongs to those who show up for it. The future belongs to those who are determined to survive and are willing to defend their culture, their language, their genetics, and their traditions. Those who aren’t, won’t.

Good riddance

The death of the print media in America. It’s pretty astonishing, but having grown up reading the Star Tribune, aka “the Red Star”, it’s good to see them collapsing in such a dramatic manner. At this rate, many of them should be gone altogether by 2023.

And it is a very healthy sign, I think, for a one-way monopolistic medium to be replaced by a two-way medium with literally thousands of options. I expect the conventional publishing world to follow suit in reasonably short order once Barnes & Noble goes out of business.

The bitter harvest of feminism

Cadders explains it in the comments at Alpha Game:

Feminism is already a dead woman walking. All feminism has is shaming language and the State (ironically, ultimately other men) to keep men to the feminist line.

But now, increasingly, the shaming doesn’t work. And men are disengaging from society in general to avoid entanglements with the state; if you don’t get married, you can’t be divorced, if you don’t co-habit you can’t have half your stuff appropriated, if you don’t have children, you can’t be on the hook for child support, if you don’t enter the corporate world you can’t be be accused of ‘harassment’ and if you don’t date you drastically reduce your chance of a false rape accusation.

These are genuine threat points for men in the modern world that didn’t exist before feminism. It speaks to the feeble minds of feminists that they would think that men will simply carry on as they did when these threats did not exist. For the last 50 years men (mostly) still did. But that’s over now.

So men are doing what they have always done: survey their environment, understand it, and behave rationally according to it. Which means, increasingly, living their lives without regard to what women want. This does not mean living without sex, relationships or female company. Just that the investment men make in all these areas is being dramatically reduced.

As feminism reduces the value of women (in men’s eyes), so men are reducing the amount of time, effort, attention and money they are willing to spend for the declining benefits modern women now bring to their lives.

But the real news is that the true cost of feminism, first born by men, and then children, is now being passed on to women. Record numbers of women are living alone, record numbers of women are childless, record numbers are on psychiatric medication, record numbers are facing a life-time of wage slavery in grinding jobs that they can never leave. And still feminism spins these outcomes as the conscious choices of these women and as ’empowering’.

And yet, women’s self-reported happiness, across all classes, all races, all demographics is lower than ever since records began 50 years ago. Tellingly, for the first time ever, their happiness is also now lower than men’s.

But you do not need to read ‘The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness’ to know this. Just talk to the increasing number of 30 and 40 year old childless spinsters one on one – not in a group – to get the REAL story. The REAL effect of feminism in the REAL world. These women don’t give two hoots about feminism, they are just wondering where all the good husbands, hell, ANY decent man, went.

Mostly, disgusted with what feminism has done to women, he walked away.

For the truth is that men don’t want to fight women, it goes against the core of what it means to be a man. But feminism thrust men into a fight that they neither started nor wanted. To the point that feminists are reduced to crowing about ‘winning’ battles that men never turned up for.

And even now, as feminism pushes and pushes and pushes to ever more absurd levels, as ever more restrictions are placed on normal masculine behavior, ever more insane definitions of ‘rape’, ‘assault’, and ‘aggression’ are drafted into law in increasingly desperate attempts to somehow, anyhow, cast women as perpetual victims – even now – men are still refusing to be drawn into a real battle.

That’s how deeply men do not want to fight women.

The sound of the final battle between the sexes will not be heard in the streets or legislatures. It will not be televised or reported. There will be no flags hoisted or victory parades. Because it is already in progress. It is happening all around us in plain sight, for those with the eyes to see it.

And men are deploying the most devastating weapon of all – indifference. In this final battle who cares least wins.

The time has come to reap the harvest of feminism, and for women the fruit will be bitterest of all.

It’s pretty simple, women. Either abandon feminism or abandon all hope of being wives and mothers. Because men will not abide feminism and you cannot force us to accept it. 70 years of a totalitarian government could not make communism work. And no amount of resorting to State force is going to make a feminist society viable.