The previous parts have largely been concerned with the scale of individuals and the scale of one’s own present experience within the confines of the progressive, post-modern Western world. Further reading beyond my own inadequate monologues has been recommended; mainly the work of the late Italian esotericist Julius Evola and his works Revolt Against the Modern World, Men amid the Ruins and Ride the Tiger; as well as the late French intellectual Rene Guenon and his work The Crisis of the Modern World (which ought to be read before any of Julius Evola’s work). The central premise of the aforementioned works – differences taken into account – is that Western mankind is presently living within a state of spiritual deterioration which is leading to the demise of Western civilization. If one is so inclined to believe history is cyclical, as I do, then the present epoch can seem “natural” or at the very least, not as artificial as some would believe; thus the “fall” of a civilization appears as a somewhat normal occurrence which happens once certain boxes are ticked, to put it one way. Once a society reaches a certain size, as spoken of in a previous part, forces are set in motion which change the nature of the society at large. The psychology and behaviour of large groups of individuals, as is a more common occurrence within developed, metropolitan Western cities, differs greatly than that of the behaviour of small communities or of individuals. Gustave le Bon’s The Crowd deals with this extensively; and I certainly believe this is an area of study which requires much more attention than what it presently receives. That is not to say that certain groups with certain agendas cannot achieve certain things “unnaturally,” or at least ulteriorly and subvertly. Western media at the present time is rife with agendas and the misrepresentation of reality: lies which misinform the population and in turn create a false image of reality which is then carried through nearly the entire society. Human nature is partly tribal and primal, and social consensus – the desire to fit into the norms of the group – exists as a mechanism to avoid infighting within a tribe, so that groups do not constantly tear eachother apart. This, however, is an evolutionary mechanism which is constantly exploited by the contemporary intelligentsia. The doctrine of political correctness is one such exploitation of this innate, primal desire, which is clearly the result – at least in part – of intellectuals with agendas, wishing to control the scope of information and expression ordinary people are exposed to. Totalitarianism.
The semideliberate nature of the present crisis is of course a double-edged sword. Pampered, healthy Westerners who have never known danger or the very real nature of group versus group competition which exists throughout most of human history are ignorant, and thus vulnerable. It is quite clearly not the entire fault of the liberal establishment that these sorts of people exist – it is more a result of the prosperous, peaceful society Western people have spent millennia spilling blood for existing for a long enough period for a generation or two to be raised within, never fully understanding the exceptional nature of such a historical occurrence. To understand the exceptional nature of such an occurrence, one needs to know history and human nature in a certain way. That is, to see it in its wholeness: the good with the bad – the latter requiring extensive knowledge of (typically secondhand, but most effectively firsthand) to bring the two into equilibrium where all possibilities are taken into consideration. The greatest danger facing Westerners is twofold: 1) an incompetent and malevolent leadership which is not concerned with the longterm survival of the group they ought to be representing and serving, and 2) the farce of multiculturalism which the Western leadership is bringing about, and will ultimately culminate in violence between native Westerners and outsiders. The first point is rather easily observable. The incompetence and stupidity of Western higher-ups is often exaggerated by the media for whatever reason, but is still existent enough for it to be noticeable and fatally powerful. From the naive antistrength stance of the political far Left, to the shallow, short-term interests of the Left, to the apathetic, powerless tolerance of the centerground, to the materialistic, lackluster rhetoric of the Right, to the often thuggish and overly populistic far Right, all areas of the Western political spectrum fail to adequately diagnose and treat the illness we are currently experiencing – even though many individuals within the political elite have spent years if not decades refining their craft and their minds (or at least they ought’ve). So how are almost all areas of Western influence causing more problems than they are solving? The full reason is extremely complex of course, but to give the very short answer as I see it, the reason is simple lack of perspective.
Most people live their lives in the here and now, only really concerning themselves with day-to-day survival and filling the gap between life and death with as much comfort as possible. One can attribute this to our biological nature; creatures evolve and adapt to their environment to the bare minimum of what is required to survive with relative success without expending excess energy and resources. Without higher motivation such as religious or spiritual reasoning, humanity is prone likewise; where as a species we are very content to slough down into the lowest common denominators and only do what is necessary to get by without it being too intolerable. Of course, on the plane of human groups, one group which is stronger, more confident and more assertive than another will reign triumphant over the latter: survival of the fittest is a principle which humans are not wholly free of. As said, human history is the grand story of this dance of life and death; of the strong and clever besting the weak and stupid within the grand theater of Mother Earth – and what a fascinating tale it has been thus far! But as we have also seen (especially concerning present-day Europe), groups which reach positions of power can quickly stop their advance due to the aforementioned mechanism whereby a group need not advance any further. This is evidently the case with the few isolated tribes which still exist in the more remote areas of South America, Africa and parts of Asia; human groups who didn’t move much beyond the stone age by themselves because there was no reason for them to do so – they could survive relatively quite well as they were. European history, contrarily, is full of competition where groups had to continuously outdo oneanother to survive; war is one of the primary drivers behind technological advancement, to pick one example, which in turn leads the population of the technologically advanced group to develop greater medicinal capabilities. Group competition is the primary driving force behind advancement. There are other forces which can further a society’s advancement. That the West is still developing technologically is not really due to group versus group conflict, but because the resources are there within the civilization which enables “passive” advancement (instead of “aggressive” advancement like we see as a result of war) during peacetime or in areas which are not facing direct existential threats.
Direct existential threats, however, are not as common as indirect existential threats. The latter are in fact everpresent in all waking moments at all levels. It’s a metaphysical principle, that of difference itself, which is manifest on all planes. As long as there exists one thing and another, there is difference, and the prospect of one overcoming the other in any way. From the simplest physics whereby strong forces dominate weak forces, to the most complex ecosystems whereby survival of the fittest is law, to the basest human interaction: we shake hands, but who extends their arm first, grips tightest and withdraws quickest? The exertion of power, manifest via the principle of multiplicity, is an inescapable law of reality and beyond. Regarding humanity, I’ll quote the late Julius Evola:
The notion of “many” (i.e., a multiplicity of individual beings) logically contradicts the notion of “many equals.” First of all, ontologically speaking, this is due to the so-called “principle of undiscernibles,” which is expressed in these terms: “A being that is absolutely identical to another, under every regard, would be one and the same with it.” Thus, in the concept of “many” is implicit the concept of their fundamental difference: “many” beings that are equal, completely equal, would not be many, but one. To uphold the equality of the many is a contradiction in terms, unless we refer to a body of soulless mass-produced objects.
Inequality; difference; competition; et cetera, is a fact of nature and of man and of life. This has been forgotten by a huge number of people living in the Western world, and that ignorance puts them at a disadvantage existentially against groups who are well aware, whether at an intelligent level or not, of the fact. Most non-Western people are aware of this fact; most immigrants coming to the West are aware of this fact; and so on. Western people will, very soon, be forced to reawaken. If not, then they will be destroyed. It’s a dramatic and eccentric thing to say by contemporary standards, but it is true.