The Case for Societal Collapse as Saving GraceAquilonius
During my short stint on this Earth, I’ve come to realize that people really aren’t that complicated. While we all have free will, hardly everything — or even the majority of the things we do — is of this divine spark. Rather, even the best of us probably spend most of their time living on some form of autopilot. We need not think deeply when making scrambled eggs or taking a shower.
This level of free will varies among the populace. The geniuses are on the high end, while the NPCs (non-player characters) are on the lower end, and many others fall somewhere in the middle. I am of the opinion that very few, if any, people are literally NPCs possessing zero free will, but that a vast majority of people have so little free will and are so dominated by their lizard brain that they might as well be extras on a Hollywood set.
Even if humans are made in the image of God, we are mostly animals at the end of the day. We share 99% of our DNA with animals, and we are made of the same flesh, blood, and even brain (to an extent) as animals — and yet we are high and mighty on this Earth. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the field of psychology first became a true methodology and science, these uncomfortable facts became more and more glaring. Behavioral psychologists like Ivan Pavlov showed that there could potentially be a science behind training animals, while Edward Bernays demonstrated that this could easily be applied to human populations as well. Humans, no different than animals, respond chiefly to incentives, plain and simple.
This revelation concerning the importance of incentives is, I believe, among the most serious realizations I have made in my years of study. It seems simple, and yet the gravity of such an idea creates ripples in every aspect of how we as reactionaries view political science and strategy if we are to adopt (wisely) the view of realism as a guiding light. It is necessary not to see the world as we wish it to be, but how it actually is, if our intention is to have any effect on society.
If one asks, “Why do people do so and so?”, the answer is inevitably some sort of incentive structure, with certain unusual individuals as exceptions. In yesteryear, the incentive to having many kids was, other than simple godliness, that children were actually a net positive in terms of labor. Children could be utilized to do certain chores around the farm, and even in early industrial times they could work and bring money to the household. In contrast, today’s children are a net negative on the family economically, with estimates ranging at around $200,000 per child. And this does not even count the thousands per citizen in taxes each year that children incur in the form of public education.
Another example is marriage. In the past, women needed men to survive. There was no worse fate than to end up as an old maid. Without children, women were aimless and purposeless. Today, as a result of contraception and the idea that freedom means being able to do everything that men can, there is little incentive to settle down. And as for men, why would a man marry while the government is disincentivizing the institution by turning the marriage contract into a potential get-rich-quick scheme for women? It is becoming more and more obvious that marriage today is simply an agreement which the woman is incentivized to breach. At this point, the main reason to get married for a man is for the sake of children — but, as already discussed, this is also being disincentivized.
Why do people follow the law? Why do other people break the law? Why do so many virtue-signaling people go along with “the current thing?” Why is society behaving in such and such way? In the end, most of these questions boil down to incentives. This revelation produces a further problem: How do we change incentives? Unfortunately, the Right has been trying to do this for decades to no avail. Cthulhu swims slowly, but always to the left.
The same pattern has existed in all societies and has always come to an end, eventually. However, the idea of some sudden swing of the pendulum is a misnomer at best and a cope at worst. There are rightward swings, but they are always momentary and incapable of actually creating a proper, meaningful rightward swerve for all of society. Perhaps the reason why so many people have a seemingly primordial predilection towards a societal collapse or “without rule of law” scenario is because they sense that only a temporary return to the state of nature can restore natural order to society.
This view goes hand-in-hand with the idea I have proposed of incentive primacy. There is simply no way to properly legislate morality if the people have already had the taste of the forbidden fruit that is the modern conception of freedom. Even among our own ranks, I question how socially well-adjusted we could possibly hope to be if we were hypothetically to be transported back in time 200 years, let alone 2,000 years ago. I am therefore pessimistic about this; people must simply learn the hard way the consequences of their actions.
These consequences would then be codified as a mythic, titanic past which would guide future generations in morality and in terms of what to be wary of. In the Bible there is the story of Eve’s womanly nature, as well as that of the child-sacrificing or otherwise degenerate nations of Canaan, Sodom, and Gomorra. The Romans contrasted themselves with the child-sacrificing Carthaginians. The Greeks’ mythology also contains some hints concerning a degenerated time under the Titans, which was characterized by parents murdering children, as seen in Kronos devouring his children and King Lycaon attempting to fool Zeus into eating a slaughtered child. It would not take much imagination to predict that our descendants will create similar legends of how the once-great but fallen West, which had once able to travel among the stars and construct buildings which scraped the sky, degenerated and cannibalized itself.
If the incentive structures remain — which they will due to the high time preference nature of a late-stage civilization, which is itself borne out of an incentive structure –, we can little hope for any “great awakening.” The people simply don’t want it enough. They have to be forced to accept a wholly new incentive structure amounting to “Do this or you will literally starve to death or be killed by wastelanders.” This prospective incentive structure is inherently outside the scope of a civilization of our magnitude. Those who harp on about the “return to tradition,” I fear, would themselves cry to their mothers if they were forced to live in such an apocalyptic age. And yet, it is probably only out of such an age that the natural order can be reforged once again. It must be forced by nature organically, not artificially imposed by the state.
As to when this will occur — and indeed it will –, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen; not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Plato’s Phaedo, Part II
Sexual Utopia in Stockholm
Documenting the Decline
Conquering Our Cryptids
The War Against White Children, Part 1
The Rise and Fall of Andrew Tate, Part 3
By the Twisted Word, Slain; By the Good Word, Saved . . . & Other Stories Part I
Happy Valentine’s Day from Counter-Currents!
What did your Cthulhu reference mean??
Lovecraft’s monster swims slowly left?
Can you please explain? Thank you.
That one is a Neoreactionary proverb. Basically it means that the political climate always moves leftward, and for the worse.
The thought is, the fall has already happened, not in a technological apocalypse, like the “Mad Max_Road Warrior”, but a moral one. A moral apocalypse.
The managerial system can go on for many more decades, perhaps even centuries. Our civilization is being a) morally degraded, b) politically transformed, and c) racially transferred, far more than it is literally being destroyed. We are not South Africa. Those fools (assuming their vote in 1992 to end apartheid – one I recall well at the time – was legal) knew or should have known what they were letting themselves in for. Their situation is not yet ours. The end result of what we are allowing to be done to ourselves will be great misery for future white generations. But the system will chug on. Only if we were being overnight replaced by blacks would the system be in serious danger of rapid collapse.
IOWs, “accelerationist” scenarios, which I admit to opposing anyway for purely selfish reasons (I’m too old now to be able to restart and rebuild after system-crash), are unlikely, as well as unlikely to lead to where their adherents hope. If we want to escape the system, we must work towards that goal in a slow and rational way. That path, as I keep saying, involves mass relocation to Red States, followed by tremendous political and metapolitical work, all done with a view to secession and eventual ethnostatist sovereignty. People who think a collapse will save us, especially if we’re not rigorously prepared to exploit such a collapse, are mere fantasists.
In “Why Race Matters” Michael Levin argues quite convincingly in my opinion that whites have more free will than blacks. His argument is based on a compatibilist analysis of the free will versus determinism problem. The free will gap seems to correlate with the IQ gap (100 – 85 = 15). Since whites are smarter than blacks, they can better see the consequences of their actions than blacks and are thus are able to make better (i.e. more free) choices. I have a question for the author or any of the readers. Since Jews are smarter than whites by 15 IQ points, do Jews have more free will than whites? If so, it would follow that East Asians also have more free will than whites although less than Jews. East Asians have average IQ = 105.
I never liked that part of WRM. I thought Levin needlessly introduced the free will debate into an area which didn’t need it. I’m not sure the philosophical issues surrounding the free will problem have been, or even can be, solved. Levin’s point wrt IQ differences certainly does not solve the ‘hard’ free will problem. And even if we assume the existence of freedom of the moral will (as I do, though I grant little else in this realm), saying whites are smarter than blacks doesn’t mean we actually have greater (or lesser) free will, only that we would be more aware of the options for, and consequences of, particular choices. We have greater informational awareness, and that can lead to wiser choices. But whether we choose at all remains unsolved after the insertion of IQ into the debate.
You are right that the Free Will problem is probably not solvable insofar as solvable means to obtain agreement by all competent philosophers. But I will accept your claim that “choosing wiser” is good enough to show the difference between whites and blacks in choosing. All I lose is the word “Free”. The real natural difference between blacks and whites remains. Any ideas as to whether Jews and East Asians choose wiser than we do?
Tough to generalize – about whites. We are two races, really (psychologically): normals and douchebags (ie, those who are similar to other races, and liberals, who are evolutionary outliers). I don’t think Jews or Orientals are somehow wiser than modal white rightists. OTOH, nearly everybody but the dumbest races is wiser than liberals. (I’m serious, not facetious.)
I see you are serious and I think you are right. I just wish there was something we can do with white liberals. I think the problem is confirmation bias which I first learned about from Sam Dickson in a video of his speech at AMREN 3 or 4 years ago. The idea is that a very number of people, including whites with IQ greater than or equal to 100, will not change their minds on important political or moral issues even when presented with overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are wrong. This is about all I know about CB but in my experience it is indeed true. I hate to be pessimistic but I think that is how the world is. I know that I myself don’t suffer from CB because I changed my mind on the morality of the Vietnam War at least 3 times. My final conclusion is that it was a mistake and immoral. I really don’t think I will ever change back again. I have 3 brothers who are much less intelligent and very poorly educated compared to me. None of them will even speak with me and all are white liberals.
Well I guess the people who will survive this culture are the people who can break away mentally from incentives right now and instead live for eternity. Untill the collapse forces us to all do it that is.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment