A Followup On The Source of Western Individualism

I should follow up on my last post with this thought:

1) For the fist time in western history, military leadership has been effectively denuded of political power. Our politicians are not only not required to have demonstrated military experience, but our generals are conspicuously absent from the political stage. Their departure is partly due to the change of the military’s focus from competition between tribes and states to the battle between consumer capitalism and world communism. A conflict which instead of pitting a group of classes against another group of classes, pitted classes within groups against one another. The pervasive fear of the military caused by the strategy of mutually assured destruction didn’t help reform military perception. And the cultural, regional, racial and religious factionalization of the USA combined with the leftist conquest of academia (sometimes by physical force) ((See Cornell University)) rendered the anti-martial sentiment a persistent property of the populist cultural norms. ALthough one feature of this change is interesting: The military as an institution has largely succeeded in maintaining the respect of the populace. The politicians are blamed for the misuse of military force.

2) If there are only three types of coercive political power: Force (the military and the militia), Moral (priests and public intellectuals), and Exchange (entrepreneurs and financiers), then one third of the balance of power has been removed from our political sphere. I would stipulate this is what instinctively troubles aristocratic conservatives. Not only are Whites becoming a minority, but their martial leadership has been ostracized from power. Social conservatives can still rally around the church for communal confirmation. But aristocratic conservatives cannot – they have no political venue.

From antiquity until 1960, a male could seek status and acceptance through military service (and looting), familial provider-ship (and access to sex), religious conformity (demonstrated commitment to the community), and productive labor (craftsmanship), or at the very least, simply providing the service of his physical strength. Under agrarianism almost all of these venues are open to all men. Under industrialization the set is reduced. Under the information age, the male’s entire existence became materially undesirable. This is why the underclass males are abandoning marriage, religion, work, and even fear of imprisonment – they adopt a new version of mediterranean bravado. Upper class males are abandoning society altogether. The middle class and the upper proletariat fuss with the empire while its natural aristocracy revels in effete consumer decadence.)

3) I do not see a means of developing a natural aristocracy given the decline of agrarian self-sufficiency, the end of the regimental system in favor of conscription and state funding, and the rise of the majority of occupations that no longer participate in the market. Democracy is a slow road to totalitarian communism. And I do not see, absent some sort of extremely disruptive economic and geopolitical event, a way of altering this trend. WE will return to ignorance and poverty – or more likely, a two class system on the order of south america.

Leave a Reply