Primer, I – V

I: Introduction

I’m about to attempt a rather stretched pulling-together of things for the novices out there, as well as for my own sake; to outline my positions as best I can without taking too long. A kind of joining of dots. Whether or not I am successful; whether this will be extremely long-winded; or even if I am correct are all currently adrift (as my mind usually is, in a very wandering, meandering, chaotic fashion). I will likely add to this, or change things, or delete things, or whatever, as time progresses. Nevertheless, let’s begin.

Firstly, let us introduce, for you novices, the notion of “decline” on the scale of a civilization or a culture. Most of our era truly believe that current values within the zeitgeist are how things should be. The values of liberalism, democracy, socialism, tolerance, diversity, sensitivity, acceptance, inclusiveness and so on which are supported by the mainstream, are to the vast majority of Western peoples, the correct way: the right way and, most of all; the moral way. Multiculturalism, for example, is something utterly supported by the political elite in the United Kingdom. 13% of the U.K. is non-white, that is to say, not of the native culture, which has its religious roots, for example, in several millennia of north-west European paganism from the Celts, Picts, Saxons and so on; several centuries of south European paganism from the Romans; and over a millennium of Christianity from mainland Europe (notably the Normans). Multiracialism – a significant portion of the country being of non-native race; people of different religions and cultures – has only been a feature of these islands for just under one century. That is not a long time in terms of the rise and fall of civilizations.

I hear you now: “Race and culture are not synonymous!” I have covered this before, but to put it shortly: the case which you, the liberal, says is factual – that culture is not dependent on race – has a slight problem. Cultures exemplify the common traits between individuals; whether or not the individuals all have similar experiences, or undergo certain circumstances, all play a part in the make-up of the culture they develop. The trouble now is that the immigrants and descendants of immigrants that live in Western countries have nothing to do, culturally, with the country they are now living in. Two things can happen: a) they retain their own culture by immigrating in large enough numbers and forming communities that are distinct from the native culture, which causes social fragmentation and a brutal divide between them and others, and b) the reason they immigrated at all was on materialistic lines: consumerism quickly swallows these immigrants and they do nothing but add to the pile of soulless, empty, materialistic product-obsessed plebeians, whose emergence is one of the many symptoms of “decline” (more on that later). And all this is just one example – immigration – of the current liberal zeitgeist causing issues. No, liberalism is not to blame for the crisis in which these people find themselves in, but it does nothing to solve it, and in fact, it worsens the situation by sapping the cultural lifeblood of these people.

What saps the lifeblood? What is the cause? Consumerism, which is a manifestation of materialistic tendencies, allowed via a huge number of cheap resources supplied by capitalism. Here, we begin to move beyond the political “Left” and “Right.” Again, more on this at a later point.

There is actually a current within not only Western society, but within many groups globally, who believe that these values are, in fact, not the correct path. Issues like those pointed out above are scorned in the mainstream. Try going onto a TV show like Question Time or one of those fancy American talk-shows and saying something like “Mass-immigration is nothing but destructive” and see how long it takes for you to get death threats or receive physical harm from people so obsessed with ideology and group-think, that they cannot mentally process the possibility of themselves being duped by intellectuals who do not live in the real world; of being wrong.

I’m typing this as a guy who grew up in a single-parent, lower-working class household in the suburbs of a small city. Growing up I was surrounded by crime and nefarious types. Drugs, weapons, struggle – you name it, I’ve seen it. And believe me, people like Owen Jones and Russell Brand do not understand the consequences of the policies they advocate, nor do they truly know the people they affect. The nanny-state, mass-immigration, socialism, are all tragic because they are movements/ideas founded on kind intentions, but which cause awfulness when implemented in reality.

II: The Modern West

The previous part intended to introduce talking points and bring about the asking of questions. Now, we will clarify the questions asked and questions answered in the first post:

1) Multiculturalism was presented, as one idea of many which is accepted by the contemporary Western zeitgeist, as a flawed concept. This introduces the possibility that the broad masses have either been mislead or are just flat-out wrong. I’d dare suggest it is a bit of both, and that the two possibilities are the same thing at a certain point.

The vast majority of people – the masses – live their lives in their own lives; in the here and now. If we have just under one century of peace and prosperity, then the people born within that see this as the norm; as the default; as it is all they have ever known. The people have not been subject to many of the more nasty sides of human nature, and thus they see them as something external and completely alien. This is not the case. Human nature is equal parts good and bad; right and wrong; kind and cruel: it is simply the exterior cultural climate in which the individual lives which exemplifies certain sides of this. How one tunes a guitar, human nature is tuned. It can be done up to a certain point by, for instance, propaganda, but the tuning of human beings mostly lies on two things: the availability of material resources; and the interior, spiritual state of the individual. These two forces interplay, of course, but those are the key realms.

To bring this into our modern context, a human being living in the West will have experienced a good life, on average. He has clothes, food, shelter and security aplenty. There are exceptions to every rule, but this is the average. The same here applies to the majority of first-generation immigrants. They will experience an abundance of material resources which keeps them, and everyone else, happy. The trouble is that there is no spiritual, “higher” bond between these people beyond material tendencies. This is now climaxing in horrid racial violence in the U.S.; the immigrant crisis in Europe; and Islamic fundamentalists clashing with Western degenerates; just to name a few conflicts. These three examples, though, were allowed in the first place by a war-torn West who needed labour after the second World War, and secondly by tolerant liberals who wanted immigration, and thus accelerated the rate of migration into Western nations all in the name of “equality.” Both materialistic, worldly plans.

The masses have allowed all this because the conditions have been okay so far – we still have a functioning society – but these things will not last. As pointed out above by those three examples of racial and cultural tensions, cracks are appearing in the narrative of “everyone is equal and everyone wants world peace.”

2) Consumerism is the primary driving force for not only mass-immigration, but for the daily life of most Western individuals. Of course, again; this is not to be taken absolutely, but gently; broadly. Modern man lives to work, and he works to buy things. He purchases his pleasures and lives for sensual experience. Drug culture, party culture, club culture, sex culture, pornography, et cetera, are all manifestations of this drive to wallow in hedonism. To reduce life itself down to the lowest common denominator between diverse peoples: physical pleasure.

If that’s good for you; if you think that’s all existence is about – then good for you. Interestingly enough, modern man, you’re a fucking cuck. The ancient and heroic peoples understood that – yes – there is the animal part in all of us, but it is not everything. It is allocated a place and it is restrained. Even the orgiastic rites of ancient Greece existed to fill a religious – transcendent – function; they existed beyond just having a good fuck, they attempted, although degenerately so, to push man beyond his there-and-then temporary self. Consumerism and hedonism presuppose that there is nothing beyond the self and the ego, and that a life is “good” as long as one is “happy.” This was not enough for the ancients, so what has changed? Well, the availability of resources tends to do interesting things to groups; the psychology of crowds is startling in comparison to the psychology of individuals. More on that a later time.

3) Champagne socialists do not represent the lower classes nor understand them. The rise of the intellectual class in the West is a sign of the superficiality of information to the minds of people. Knowledge is now a commodity, and it is a tragedy. Students spend hours in classrooms theorizing about class-relations, oppression, critical theory and so on, and not enough time living in the real world around real people. You, my silly progressive mass-immigration advocate; go down to your local workman’s cafe on a weekday lunchtime and ask around for the working man’s views on multiculturalism, Islam, the boat people crisis and so on. You will be horrified – but you fucking deserve it. Contrary to popular belief, the working man is not stupid nor ignorant. Racism is not a symptom of low intelligence. It can manifest in a kind of sub-personal tribalism, yes – that is a part of human nature – but these things are not a product of nothing. There is a tangible difference between groups; there are higher cultures and lesser cultures: this is the diversity of the human races. Only an intellectual-type can achieve the level of mental gymnastics in order to side-step these glaring truths.

Our society has existed in a state of nihilistic peace for so long that true human nature has been forgotten, and the people have become a mass of soulless, mass-produced objects. This, however, is an illusion which is breaking. The signs are there, and the awful spectacularness of mankind will once again be out in the open, as described. What is the right “state” though? The right condition? Tradition. More on that at a later point.

III: Beyond “Real”

So how does all of this link to “decline”? Before I properly sink my teeth into this, I must further clarify my style, in a sense. I really do not have the time to write anything more than an extended essay to explain in great detail a philosophy of history, especially not in the way Oswald Spengler did in The Decline of the West, for example. The answers and viewpoints here will not be probed into to the point of obsession. If anyone reading this has any questions on anything specific, then contact me directly and I’ll attempt to treat any problems there. I am a flawed human being, and I’’m especially not used to writing such lengthy things; so forgive any incoherence or inconsistency. Back to the topic at hand, however.

It’’s often that one overhears people saying thing like “”This is the best time in history! Everyone is equal, we have freedom, medicine and technology allow us to live healthier lives for longer – what’s the problem?”” The problem is simple: Human society has collectively shifted from a focus on quality to a focus on quantity. This has occurred in multiple fashions, and I am still undecided whether it has been as a result of material conditions in human society, or the metaphysical state of the species. Nevertheless, I will go into detail, to the best of my ability, on both realms. However, before we can deal with the Material Degeneration and the Spiritual Degeneration, more points must be dealt with.

To fully grasp what this extended monologue is “all about,” I’’d encourage the reader to explore beyond the politics and socioeconomics of the here and now. What we are trying to treat here may manifest in the here and now and on the lower levels such as economics and within classes, but it itself exists anterior to the day-to-day. It is essentially an existential crisis for the whole of humankind regardless of class, culture, colour or creed.

All things have a higher realm and a lower. One view is that physical reality is simply a mirroring of metaphysical principles. All in the category of “real,” as far as what can be perceived by the senses, is a manifestation of principles which are resonating on a lower plane which we can sensually perceive. Areas such as religion, spirituality, and so on, are not “real” in this sense, but they are still “real” in the sense of being; of existing on a higher level than the mundane. Logic and rationale are tools human beings use to access these realms, as such they could be compared to mathematics, to a degree. Mathematics, in a raw form, is abstraction; ideas; concepts – but it is still a real thing. It exists metaphysically and can be applied as a tool, and the tools of logic and rationale can be used to explore it. Religion, spirituality, and so on, exist in a similar manner. It’’s no wonder philosophers and metaphysicians like René Guénon and Julius Evola found their beginnings in mathematics. It all essentially relies on the individual’’s capacity for logic.

An understanding of this higher realm of principles is something really confined to a few among the masses of humanity who have the time and intelligence to explore it. This does not mean, however, that it is something which is to be shunned by those who aren’’t immediately drawn to it. An interest in religious matters does have broad, idealistic, “what about the whole of humanity,” aspects, but so does it affect one’s day-to-day existence. How one goes about life, relationships, one’s career (if at all) and so on are all areas which can be affected by one’’s inner orientation; one’’s sense of morality, of righteousness, or “properness,” et cetera. This is not a place for everybody, but most could find a use for it at some level if they so chose to.

IV: On Material Degeneration

The term “”Material Degeneration”” includes a diverse range of phenomena which all manifest in physical reality. Psychology, biology, economics, most of politics and the availability of resources all fall under this umbrella. Degeneration is a coin; the material is one side, and the spiritual is the other. The latter will be dealt with at another time.

As far as human history is concerned, without going into ““degeneration” yet,” the most fundamental change throughout history which the human races have been subject to is the availability of resources, how these resources are distributed, and the “who” getting “how much.” As human history has progressed, technology has improved with growing population sizes. Bigger populations require more resources, and technology has to keep up with the number of mouths which need feeding. Moreover, if a group is much bigger than another, it’’s more than likely, looking at history, that the bigger group will have a larger military force and will conquer the smaller group for resources, space and the assimilation of extra citizens. In short, larger groups do well for as long as they can sustain themselves. The most important aspect here is the psychological shift between humans, and collectives of humans, considering the size of the group.

Man alone is essentially of a masculine, individualistic character as he must depend on himself to survive. People like this are leaders; heroes. The warrior and priestly castes are made up of individuals who are, inwardly and/or outwardly, of this type character-wise. In the early stages of humanity, and of civilizations, these men thrive and quickly achieve high stations within their group. This is a theme of the beginnings of empires, where great leaders come fourth and sharpen the people in need of leadership into a sharp stick to point into the arse of the world. For those familiar with The Fate of Empires, the ages of Pioneers and Conquest are the playgrounds of these masculine types.

This, however, does not last (as most things). Great men tend to great things, and the legacy heroes leave tends to be great. Further using the Fate of Empires as a kind of logical framework, we’re now entering the ages of Commerce and Affluence. Great men still appear in these times, but the broad masses of the group become a more deciding factor on the direction of the civilization culturally. The merchant caste really comes into its own here as the previously militant group adopts more peaceful measures to sustain itself. This further accelerates the power of the group and the age of Affluence appears. There is, underneath all this, still a heroic and positive, outward-facing direction.

Once the group becomes massive in size, disaster strikes. This is the key point in the life-cycles of civilizations, empires and broad collectives. The group undergoes a shift from the masculine in mentality to the feminine in mentality. I do not mean this in a sexological way, but in a kind of psychological attitude. From aggression to defensiveness; from an exclusive, elitist outlook, to an inclusive, anti-elitist outlook.

This shift does not happen at one instant, but it is a gradual process which is due to the sheer size of the group. Once a group becomes big enough,– once the masses of the group become the deciding factor on how the group fundamentally is, things go from quality to quantity. The broad masses declare themselves to be equal to or above any heroic individuals, and the hero-figure fades into obscurity, only to be replaced by a huge mass of bodies. Crowds are feminine in their nature as the phenomenon of social pressure thrives; group-think becomes the accepted reality and people would rather not shake the calm waters and differ from the group, so they just go with the flow, like a stream of water.

It is during and after the realization of the power of the majority that we see, again, drawing from the Fate of Empires, the age of Intellect and the age of Decadence. The central essence of the aim, of the “style” of the group, becomes quantity instead of quality. Take for instance, modern egalitarianism. The claim that all human beings are equal,– are the same,– and that no man is higher or lower than another. The very concept of “greatness” has to be disregarded in order for this to function as not every man is capable of the same things. Everything, then, is reduced to the lower common denominator: the simplest commonality– between individuals. What is this? Being a “human”? Is that what passes for “greatness”? The only way to ensure absolute equality is to eliminate all differences between people; genders, classes, races, et cetera, all must be eradicated. This is a central point of modern Marxism – an ideological formulation of quantity, mass-orientatedness, and so on. The group may be materially rich, but it has no plans for tomorrow and nothing to aim for. Again, we see consumerism and the obsession of ego functioning here. If there is nothing beyond the self, then life and existence begin and end at one’s own ego and pleasure.

The material is a manifestation of the transcendent. As above, so below. Here we have so far briefly explored the higher side of the worldly meaning of “degeneration,” without really looking too much at the lower side of Material Degeneration. For this, dear reader, simply look outside. Notice modernist architecture, which does not point upward towards the heavens as Cathedrals do, for instance; but instead appear as a mass of horizontal, mass-produced blocks. Cement, glass and plastic.

The most obvious manifestation of Material Degeneration is consumerism; mass-production; and the resulting social climate in which it thrives. This is Globalism and Globalization – the turning of the world into a shopping mall and hotel. To quote Peter Hitchens: “Globalization is all about wealth. It knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Without borders the world will become – is visibly becoming – a howling desert of traffic fumes, plastic and concrete, where nowhere is home and the only language is money.”

V: On Spiritual Degeneration

“Spiritual Degeneration” is something which can be taken either very specifically or very generally. We must deal with both broad and specific definitions for “”Spiritual Degeneration,”” both of which at a later point become one. To do this I must, generally, focus on what I see within the civilization of which I am a part of. For readers not of my culture, I’’m sure that if you looked within your civilization – if it is of a modern type – you will be met with a familiar picture, no matter where you are geographically.

Broadly, mankind has collectively shifted from quality to quantity. This has happened on the material plane, as already covered; but also on the spiritual plane. The spiritual plane is distinguished from the material plane by essentially being a world of “principles,” “ideas,” “concepts,” “abstractions,” and so on; where the material is a world of the physical manifestations of these things: the material plane is a world of “things,” “people,” “matter,” “reality,” et cetera. So; where politically -– materially –- ideas such as borderlessness and mass socialism, for example, exist – the political application of the power of the masses, quantity over quality, anti-elitism, and so on –- there is the spiritual counterpart which essentially follows the same essence of the collective politicking, but operates on the individual level.

A good example of the individual’s spiritual degeneration, in fact the most obvious example, is the change in individual man’’s connection to God, to transcendence, to spirituality in general, over the ages. We, in the West, live under atheism, under nihilism, which is a far cry from previous forms of human civilization. Again, this degeneration over the ages is a very broad phenomenon, and both the material and spiritual sides of it interplay and are very much connected.

To pick, for instance, on a particular spiritual path which has degenerated, one could point a finger at Buddhism. In older times, Buddhism was seen as a warrior’’s religion, where through a process of utter self-discipline and self-slavery the individual would carve down into his self, cut through his consciousness and awaken his True Will and achieve a level of being called “enlightenment.” The monk/ascetic would completely detach himself from normal, samsaric existence via a process or state of mind called “vivekka,” where he would be utterly immune to the development of ego. To quote the Buddhist Pali canon: “To persevere steadfastly without wavering, the mind clear and unbewildered, the senses tranquil and undisturbed, consciousness concentrated and unified”; “With tireless and unremitting energy, with knowledge present and unshakable, with serene, untroubled body, with consciousness concentrated and unified”; “To persist alone, detached, tireless, strenuous, with fervid, intimate earnestness.”;

The ascetic has given up worldly craving and now rests with his mind free from craving, he purifies his mind of craving. He has given up hate and now rests with his mind free from hate, he purifies his mind of hate. He has given up inertia and accidie; lover of the light, clearly conscious, he purifies his mind of inertia and accidie. He has given up pride and restlessness, with his mind inwardly tranquil he purifies his mind of pride and restlessness. He has given up wavering, he has crossed over from doubtful uncertainty; he has no doubts about what is beneficial, he purifies his mind of wavering.

Need I even begin to compare this doctrine with the modern, Western interpretation of Buddhism which focuses on “love,” “tolerance,” “compassion,” and so on? As someone who has family involved in Western interpretations of Buddhism, I can say very clearly to the reader: the vast majority of Western, modern “Buddhists” are well-intentioned, moral people, but they do not understand Buddhism or its more esoteric, “serious” aspects at all. Buddhism has devolved into a social cult as modern Westerners, hungry for some source of spirituality, have latched onto something which seems approachable and simple. It is deplorable, but unsurprising.

The spiritual state of the West has degenerated to the extent that many Westerners are looking outwards into other parts of the world for their spiritual needs. Western converts to Islam are becoming more and more frequent, as are converts to Buddhism, Sikhism, and various obscure sects and cults, as Christianity has essentially committed suicide in the West. An exploration into that will happen at another time.

One of the main troubles is how modern Westerners treat everything in rational, scientific terms and measures, and this even extends into spirituality. The mixing of physics and metaphysics is a great tragedy of our times. As one would try and fail to measure time with centimetres, or weight with the speed of sound, so one would try and fail to understand philosophy using politics or spirituality with science. I have already explained how metaphysics operates outside of space and time, anterior to its material manifestations.

The individual in the modern world sees nothing beyond his own there-and-then self; nothing to aim for. Self-overcoming or transcendence are forgotten ideas to the majority of people, let alone achieving a collective social order which also does this; which aims upwards. It must also be kept in mind that we are not speaking of worldly goal-setting, which itself is not a degeneration, but it does become so when goal-setting is for its own sake and remains on the worldly plane.

Why would a man strive to attain peak physical condition? For women? For ego? Nonsense. A man would strive to attain peak physical condition because he is a man; he exists; he is real; he is absolute in his essence and demands of himself godliness wherever he can hope to attain it. Excellence is not a consequence or an end-goal, but a process; a style, whereby man aims to punch above his own weight in everyday life and constantly, untiringly, overcomes himself simply because he is. When this is put into a traditional perspective, the collective follows suit; not the other way around.

In a traditional collective, man is great, but so are all men. Not because the culture or society demands it, but because he, the individual demands it. Thus the collective is made of great individuals. Under the modern collective, it is the social and cultural; the external, which dominate man’s life. He does things to serve outside causes and goals, and this may well result in a level of greatness – but greatness in this respect is a consequence, not the cause as it is for traditional man. Greatness is what the Gods are made of and what they demand, thus, no man is able to excuse himself from the duty of making his existence truly his and his alone via willpower and the urge to overcome; to, again; transcend.

Again, I will repeat; the shift has happened: mankind collectively has moved from looking upwards to looking downwards; from focusing on quality to focusing on quantity; from being exclusive to being inclusive; from becoming great to renouncing the very concept of greatness.