The Bergeroning of Western Civilisation

One of the things that I dislike about fiction is how often it seems to come true.  This is especially the case when the reader is presented with a work depicting a dystopian future.  Unfortunately, there are some people out there who do not realize that dystopian works are intended to be taken as dystopian and who treat them as a challenge to reproduce these futures in real life.

This seems to be the case with the vision of a dystopian society portrayed in Kurt Vonnegut’s short story, Harrison Bergeron.  In this story, we are shown a world in which equality is forcibly maintained in every area and by whatever means necessary.  The strong are loaded down with weights to impede their movement and bodily ability.  The beautiful are purposefully uglified.  The intelligent are fitted with random noise generators to make it difficult or impossible for them to think clearly.  While the stated goal is to bring everyone to a state of equality, the below-average do not nevertheless seem to be raised.  The society shown merely acts to drag down the above average.

The thoughtful observer who has noted the past few decades of Western life may be strangely perturbed by the similarities he sees between the modern West and the society presented in Vonnegut’s tale.  The obvious obsession with “equality” in our democratic and egalitarian systems certainly serves to discourage the appreciation of aristocratic and superior traits and the sort of traditional society which encourages them.

However, it is also becoming increasingly obvious to more and more people that this is not entirely by accident.  Those of us in reaction and neoreaction often point to various macrohistorical forces which have led to the modern world (e.g. the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Puritan hypothesis, etc.).  While these forces may have provided the necessary conditions to allow the appearance of the various specific social pathologies that have infected the West over the past several decades, I would argue that these forces were not sufficient to account for them alone. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that much of what we see going on with the West’s apparent drive toward self-destruction is intentional and at least partially confirms many of the arguments that have been made by “conspiracy theorists.”  

The current intellectual and political trends seem too incredibly out of step with simple common sense and a reasonable sense of self-preservation to be purely the result of historical accident.  The West is currently replacing itself through mass immigration leading to demographic displacement.  Common sense realities about human biodiversity which used to be widely known and accepted have been shuffled to the “fringe” by academic hocus pocus masquerading as science.  Indeed, large swathes of the social sciences (especially psychology and anthropology) have been corrupted by the promotion of unscientific and empirically unsupported notions of racial equality, as well as by unsupported assumptions about the influence of “environment” over and against that of genetics, heredity, and cross-generational cultural transmission.  The result of all of these things has been the development of unrealistic ideas about the way societies work which then leads to further unsound and destructive policy decisions.

Who is behind all of this?  Let’s be honest – even though you’re not supposed to say this anymore, the perversion of the social sciences, the promotion of mass immigration and the notion of egalitarian human fungibility, and the creation of the political and cultural environments that work to systematically hobble the capacity of Western nations to uphold their own interests is the result of tremendous Jewish influence in academia, politics, and the media, as has been extensively documented by Kevin MacDonald in his book The Culture of Critique.

MacDonald thoroughly describes the systematic efforts by Jewish leaders in the United States and Europe to promote their own ethnic in-group concerns at the expense of the concerns of their gentile hosts.  Among these concerns is the promotion of mass non-white immigration into the West as a way of diluting the political and cultural influence of the predominant white majorities in those nations, thus creating division and a weakening of gentile political power, which can then be picked up by Jewish leaders posing as the patrons of the non-white immigrants.  Likewise, the rejection of genetics and heredity with respect to topics like IQ and human biodiversity allows this immigration to be “morally justified” (as well as protected from widespread criticism) by relegating such knowledge to the realm of pseudoscience and “racism.”

As a result, the purpose (and thus the subsequent effect) of the American immigration reform of 1965, as well as the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan in the European Union, has been to steadily deracinate the white Western world and replace it with a “diverse” (and presumably more compliant) population drawn from various parts of the third world.  Certainly, this has generated pushback from the native Western populations – pushback which is (incredibly) cast as “immoral” and even “murderous” by certain Western leaders (many, though not all of them, Jewish).  If MacDonald is to be believed (and there seems to be no good reason not to), this is due to Jewish antipathy toward the very principle of immigration restriction, as it clashes with Jewish ethnic interests.

The end result of this mass immigration, of course, has been the intentional handicapping of the West.  However, the areas of immigration and human biodiversity are not the only ones in which this has been occurring.  Due to the influence of Jewish thought leaders in many areas, there has been an overall moral, intellectual, and cultural degradation that has taken place among Western men that has specifically served to hinder and limit the ability of the West to maintain its own superiority and leadership.

The rejection of the very concept of racial differences in IQ and the attempt to relegate it to the status of pseudoscience, outweighed by environmental factors, serves to reduce the social status and power of the higher IQ groups who were responsible for building and maintaining the preeminent civilization of the West.  Concurrently, it supports efforts to convince people that lower IQ groups, including masses of immigrants from Africa and Latin America, could have been (or were) just as responsible for the successes of the West as were white Westerners themselves.

However, the real world consequence of this false ideology about IQ equality is to gradually lower the average IQs of Western nations, which in turn limits their economic and technological competitiveness.  As these nations shoulder the burden of more and more low IQ third worlders, greater and greater amounts of their social and economic resources are tied with merely maintaining their present level of development against the corrosive influence of increasing numbers of dyscivilizational invaders.  In essence, Western cultures are transitioning from being “innovator” societies to being “maintainer” societies.  There’s a reason why we’re no longer seriously talking about going to Mars within our lifetimes – it’s because we have to spend our resources babysitting masses of people who still haven’t produced high civilization without Western colonial help even after hundreds or thousands of years.

This is a very Bergeronesque handicapping of the intelligent and capable to bring them down to the level of the less intelligent and incompetent.   But it’s not the only area where this has taken place.

The shifting of academic emphasis away from genuine investigation into controversial subjects and toward the reinforcement of Jewish academic shibboleths has resulted in a stultification of many former fruitful fields of study.  Now many academics fear to delve into certain areas for fear of social ostracism and loss of employment.  The orthodoxies of certain Jewish intellectuals (especially of the Boasian, Frankfurt, New York, and neo-conservative circles) have become artificially entrenched and act to narrowly circumscribe the “acceptable” range of academic investigation.  This “bergerons” those who are genuinely dexterous and innovative thinkers, handicapping them to exercise their talents either within a limited range or else not at all.

Desegregation and diversity in society and the workplace has also served to corrode the position of the predominant majority and to make Western societies worse.  Forced housing desegregation has mainly served to make formerly safe neighborhoods less secure as Section 8 housing is introduced deeper and deeper into the suburbs.  The promotion of affirmative action in educational and hiring decisions has worked to make these institutions less productive while at the same time increasing the economic insecurity of more deserving whites.  This has primarily served to “bergeron” the secure and prosperous by making them less secure and less prosperous, without a truly noticeable positive effect on those for whose benefit these deeds were supposedly done.

There has also been a corrosion of Anglo-European popular culture in practically all areas (art, music, poetry and literature, performance arts, architecture, etc.).  Compared to what was produced in each of these areas even as late as the first half of the 20th century, what we see today is debased and degenerate as a result of Jewish influences upon the arts.  The intellectual level of literature and poetry – which were formerly the vehicles for the expression of great and provocative ideas – are now increasingly the domain of pedantic left-wing orthodoxies or merely vapid distractions.  Modern art is essentially garbage on a canvass, and modern architecture completely eschews the sense of beauty, balance, and proportion which formerly characterized building in practically all traditional Western cultures.  Don’t even get me started on the debasement of modern music, which has seen a progressively worsening negrofication to the point where much popular modern music consists merely of the repetition of a few phrases set to a sexualized beat.  Our entire popular culture has been “bergeroned” through the uglification of the beautiful.

Among athletic pursuits, we’ve seen a shift away from an emphasis on sports that encourage the development of the player towards a well-rounded excellence. In its place, we see the predominance of repetitive, formulaic team sports that rely on a relatively small set of stylized plays.  This shifts the sport away from the combination of the physical and the intellect towards the grossly physical.  Muscle memory replaces the development of genuine skill.

Further compounding this error is the fact that millions of Western men devote tremendous amounts of time and money to vicariously “succeeding” through the exploits of their favorite set of lunkheads on the field rather than investing the time to develop their own skills and strength.  Surrogated achievement through the television replaces the cultivation of authentic manliness, courage, and expertise.  A century ago Westerners were strong and brave real men.  Now they’re soyboys and weaklings who can’t even take a stand when sports stars disrespect their own nations.  This is yet another “bergeroning” of our societies by the metaphorical hanging of weights about our necks to weaken us.

I could enumerate many, many other areas relating to this, but won’t for the sake of time.  However, I do believe the point has been made sufficiently.  The West’s problems cannot be blamed entirely on past historical trends.  The present rot is the result of specifically engineered intellectual viruses that were introduced into our cultural milieu in the previous several decades and which now serve to damage our societies while also hobbling the ability of concerned individuals to speak out openly (for fear of being labeled as “racist,” “antisemitic,” and the like).  This purposeful weakening of our societies will not even be reversible until our people start waking up to the causes and outworking of these trends.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “The Bergeroning of Western Civilisation

  1. Viruses only kill to those who don’t have good defenses. ((())) are an oportunistic infection, as Islam is. The disease is AIDS (that is, Liberalism) who, with its claims of equality predating the abolition of the ((())) ghetto, removes the difference between in-group and out-group, lowers the defenses against a hostile group taking over

    Like

  2. “Who is behind all of this? Let’s be honest – even though you’re not supposed to say this anymore, the perversion of the social sciences, the promotion of mass immigration and the notion of egalitarian human fungibility, and the creation of the political and cultural environments that work to systematically hobble the capacity of Western nations to uphold their own interests is the result of tremendous Jewish influence in academia, politics, and the media, as has been extensively documented by Kevin MacDonald in his book The Culture of Critique.”

    What about counter-factuals?

    Assume, from 1945 onwards, everything is the same, except for the fact that there are no Jews, would mass immigration, equality etc etc still exist?

    If so, then what role or how strong a weight should Jewish influence be given?

    It is our understanding that Nrx theory posits a structural explanation for what we see (unsecure power) that can explain events (Constantine’s adoption of Christianity, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, England’s use of Scottish Protestants in Ireland etc) that do not involve Jews.

    In addition, America has had huge controversies about immigration in the past (see Gangs of New York for example).

    There is certainly a lot of bad, very bad actors (Max Boot to George Soros say), but if Patron Theory of politics say (Reactionary Future) or Power Selection (our own) can sufficiently explain mass immigration, why do we need anything else?

    Like

    1. Imperial Energy,

      You say to assume Jews dissappear in 1945 to posit the hypothetical that their influence might be overstated? This ought to be a strong indicator that your hypothesis is incredibly weak.

      Like

  3. @Rod

    What about Harvard? What about the “Protestants”? What about the Progressives in general?

    It is said that Protestants are basically Jews who eat pork.

    Even if one assumes, which is often useful to do so, a historical perspective informed by Catholicism – such as from KL – you have the following:

    1: Protestant Reformation. ( Religious unity ended once and for all.)

    2: England’s break from the Church and the establishment of the Church of England. (The foundation of Anglo-Protestant world-spanning triumph.)

    3: The English Civil War (The world-historical event which saw the execution of a king and the triumph of Parliamentarianism which led to democracy).

    4: The American Civil War (The triumph of Massachusetts. Established the foundation for a Puritan-Progressive global empire).

    5: The Great War (the suicide of Christian Europe; the triumph by default of America (over England) and the foundation for the Communist and Fascist powers).

    Look at the role of Protestants here. For instance, consider the fact, as Hoppe describes in Democracy, that Wilson unintentionally wrecked Europe with his post-war peace plans. Woodrow Wilson was a Princeton professor and a Southern Protestant.

    None of the above events, especially the two most important 1 and 5 involved Jews.

    However, the phenomena of High and Low against Middle is a structural dynamic that transcends particular moments in history or culture. You can see the dynamic in ancient and modern China; you can see the dynamic even in modern for profit corporations (see Mesquita’s Dictator’s Handbook for instance).

    Yet, it cannot be denied that Jews have played leading roles in various Leftist causes in the modern age and they some of the biggest cheerleaders for Progressivism. On the other hand, you have Jews like Stephen Miller, Paul Gottfried and Mencius Moldbug.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If I may interject, the theme of High and Low against Middle could arguably be played out in the manifestation of the Jewish and Protestant elite utilizing the Southern Black population to curtail the influence of the Catholic ethnic enclaves by using the alien element to shatter their communities, as proposed by Dr. E. Michael Jones.

      In that case I don’t know if the succeeding events would have been possible, as there would have been an obvious case of Protestant v. Catholic, the inclusion of Jews could have acted as a means of masking the social/political coup against the growing power of the American Catholic’s. Not saying this is what happened, merely suggesting an alternative as we’re now engaged in the realm of pure theoretical speculation, which I don’t generally abide by, but the question is an interesting one.

      Like

      1. “If I may interject, the theme of High and Low against Middle could arguably be played out in the manifestation of the Jewish and Protestant elite utilizing the Southern Black population to curtail the influence of the Catholic ethnic enclaves by using the alien element to shatter their communities, as proposed by Dr. E. Michael Jones.”

        That is, from what we understand, actually happened. There was, no doubt, hostility to Catholics here but, as even Jones pointed out, the hostility was in the name of a rag-tag bunch of ideas “socialism, progressivism, communism”. However, no doubt privately, historical hostility was on their minds.

        “In that case I don’t know if the succeeding events would have been possible,…”

        Not quite sure what mean. What would not have been “possible”?

        “inclusion of Jews could have acted as a means of masking the social/political coup against the growing power of the American Catholic’s.”

        Not a coup, a coup implies that the Catholics were the power but they were not – though they may have controlled certain areas of cities and things like that.

        “merely suggesting an alternative as we’re now engaged in the realm of pure theoretical speculation,”

        Hmm no. You seem to be correct here. However, we would add that the explanation has less to do with religion/ideology and more to do with power dynamics.

        Maybe you don’t mean this, but the High and Low v Middle is not all that speculative. There is evidence for it, not only from history (Alexander the Great, Rome, early Christianity for instance) and in other cultures and their histories (ancient China and Mao’s China offer instructive examples).

        BTW, Jones is eye-opening and a real “red-pill”.

        Like

    2. Allow me, a Prot descendant, to defend our side against the delusional hordes of internet Papists in turn.

      1: There never was religious unity. Heretical movements and rival intellectual strands even under the umbrella of orthodoxy are the rule. For the former, consider the Albigensians and Cathars as but two among the many tens or hundreds of heresies big and small. And to the latter, you have the Stoic, Platonic, and Aristotelian traditions of the Church. Additionally, you had the Schism in 1050 and then in the late Renaissance a wave of corruption, centralization, and discontentment in the Church which made the Reformation either likely or inevitable (especially with how southern the Church was and to a large degree still is). Unity is something one possesses in degree generally rather than in whole. There may have been a greater degree of unity in 1290 than in 1650, but the notion of absolute unity as history is trash.

      2: England is part of the same North Sea area that the Netherlands, Northern Germany, and the Scandinavian countries are broadly. They all took to the Reformation for political and sociobiological factors. Frankly, spoken English back then (1520-1640ish) was more like German or Dutch than it is today because the Great Vowel shift was underway and an additional ‘Enlightenment’ dump of Romance words had not happened. Why are Catholics mad about a global Protestant empire? The problem was not the early stage English empire, but clearly the late stage empire when currents of bourgeois rule and Jewish influence were starting to have an impact.

      3: Some would say Cromwell did nothing wrong except possibly bargaining with Jews. They were banned from the kingdom since the time of Edward I until Cromwell allowed them return.

      4: Both North and South were Protestant in America, and they were just slightly different flavors of Prot. The North was largely Quaker, Methodist, Episcopalian, Congregationalist, or Lutheran with some Catholics (mostly new immigrants). The South was largely Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian. It was not a religious struggle fundamentally, although abolitionists obviously dressed their propaganda in religious language.

      5: Right, and it was a war started by Catholics (Austria-Hungary) against Orthodox (Serbia) over territorial ambitions. One would be remiss, by the way, if one did not note that there were Catholics on both sides (Germany and Austria-Hungary as well as Italy, Great Britain, and France). The Pope could denounce the war all he liked, but he could not stop the warring factions even if he excommunicated the leaders.

      The fact that you call Protestants “Jews who eat pork” is hilarious. You long for a world which did not exist and cry over Protestants winning and Papists losing. The worst parts of modernity do not flow necessarily from the Reformation or from the Renaissance and there is no hopelessly contorted flowchart you could make that could prove that. Unless you believe wholly in fate and that will is an illusion, clearly there are points where history can change and burning Luther as a heretic isn’t the only one.

      Like

      1. Oh we are not Catholic, but the above is very plausible history.

        “1: There never was religious unity.”

        There is a difference between what you mention and the changes that Luther helped bring about.

        “Why are Catholics mad about a global Protestant empire? The problem was not the early stage English empire, but clearly the late stage empire when currents of bourgeois rule and Jewish influence were starting to have an impact.”

        Catholics would clearly have a different opinion. Read Metternich on the causes on the French Revolution for example.

        5: True. But the role that Wilson played was decisive.

        “The fact that you call Protestants “Jews who eat pork” is hilarious. You long for a world which did not exist and cry over Protestants winning and Papists losing. ”

        We are more funny than people give us credit for. In person, you would think we were doing stand up.

        Catholics certainly “mourn” their history and blame either or both Protestant and Jews. This article pretty much just blames the Jews.

        In truth, no group is to blame. Imperium in Imperio and war is what is to blame.

        Like

  4. @Imperial Energy

    Ah! I had no idea you replied to that comment at Social Matter.

    I apologize for the lack of clarity with my words, I was in a hurry when I wrote this initial comment. By “Possible” I meant the curtailing of the growing Catholic political bloc would have failed without the alliance/presence of Jews alongside the Protestant elite, as the ethnic Catholic neighborhoods were growing too fast and were too well entrenched for the Protestants to handle alone. No Jewish presence, no breakup of the ethnic Catholic enclaves, or at least a more drawn out and obvious battle over it, rather than the route it was.

    I don’t mean to suggest that High and Low v. Middle is speculative, I think it plays out fairly frequently as a common type in history and is quite provable. Certainly power dynamics play a role, I’m inclined to believe a preeminent role, but religion/ideology ultimately determines the manner power is wielded, justified, and the speed and order in which its multifarious manifestations may be realistically exerted. The two inform one another, power informs religion and ideology, and ideology and religion inform power in a feedback loop.

    I actually created a flowchart for how I see it after reading one of your articles in the STEEL Cameralism series that I’ve been trying to figure out how to work into an article to send into Social Matter.

    Like

  5. @Phileas_Frogg

    No worries. Thanks for the reply and sorry for the late one as we were using our dashboard to see if there was a reply (we clicked on this post again).

    Our comment was left quite late though. We already had read that article but looked at it again after reading Carl.

    As for Protestants & Catholics in America. It is a counter-factual but we are included to think it would not have made much of a difference. The structures of power, such as the Harvard, the New York Times, the Supreme Court and the NGOs were all their. Crucially, the “Low” of African-Americans would also have been still present (and it was they who were used as the “muscle” to drive out the Catholics) and the imperatives of the Cold War which led to the Progressive Elite concluding that they needed to provide civil rights.

    One also has to point out that Southern, traditional Protestants got it in the neck and Mormons too. During this time, the Mormon church had to change one of its principles regarding blacks and church leadership (or something like that).

    This topic made us think of this scene (a “Protestant”, “Catholic” and a “Jew”) where you have subtle power games going on:

    “So let’s run with both of these.”

    As for the flowchart, some of the images here might be useful:

    https://goo.gl/f3Eh7L

    We would also like to know how to use make use of custom charts.

    “The two inform one another, power informs religion and ideology, and ideology and religion inform power in a feedback loop.”

    No doubt.

    Categorizing the Modern Structure into different sub-systems as it applies to religion and ideology we have:

    1: The information sub-structure or institutions : Cathedral Harvard, NYT).
    2: The management structure (Polygon: Civil Service, Federal Bank, Pentagon etc).
    3: The social structure (Castes: Brahmins, Dalits etc).
    4: The ideological or religious structure (Universalism, crypto-Calvinism).

    Clearly, it sub-structure 4 that is the most visible and one that has been changed by feedback loops. Less visible, but still reasonably obvious is 3 (changes to the make-up of the castes – in racial and “religious” terms; i.e more “Jews”, “Catholics”, “Muslims”, “Hindus” now).

    As for 2, there have been little change here. However, one could add in or possibly include some of Silicon Valley. As for 1, it has also not changed very much; however, since the end of the Cold War NGOs and think tanks have grown in size and and number (and perhaps importance).

    It should be clear why 4 and 3 will show the fastest to evolve or change while 1 and 2 are either permanent to semi-permanent.

    Best.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s