Category: Decline of the West

How Long Can We Last?

Historian Hanson wrote in January of 2022: 

In modern times, as in ancient Rome, several nations have suffered a “systems collapse.” The term describes the sudden inability of once prosperous populations to continue with what had ensured the good life as they knew it. 

Abruptly, the population cannot buy, or even find, once plentiful necessities. They feel their streets are unsafe. Laws go unenforced or are enforced inequitably. Everyday things stop working. The government turns from reliable to capricious if not hostile. 

It is now October, 2023, and things are far worse.  We are closer than ever to systemic collapse. We do have it over the Bishop of Hippo in one respect, however: we can watch the decline and fall of a great republic on television! So far it is almost entertaining, and exceedingly stimulating for those of us of an intellectual bent, and it may remain such for a while as long as we can live our lives without being carjacked, mugged, shot to death, raped, and so long as our pharmacies and supermarkets remain open, the grid remains functional, and so on. Not to mention being thrown in prison by the agents of the police state with the tacit support of the useful idiots that make up about half of the population.

But it is only a matter of time before we are all, government functionaries and useful idiots included, swept up in the death spiral if we don't do something pronto.  Is societal collapse inevitable? I say No; my friend Brian thinks me naive. He may be right. (Argue your case, son.)

What say you?  How much time do we have before the sun finally sets on the Land of Evening? How much time do we have before der Untergang des Abendlandes?

We are drowning in excellent analysis when we need action. Trouble is, ameliorative action is out of the question in a nation as divided as we have allowed ourselves to become.

How to Tell the Impostor RCC from the Real Thing

The Roman Catholic Church with Bergoglio at its head is an impostor church. So William Kilpatrick asks:

. . . how can one tell the imposter Church from the Church established by Christ?

Although there are several indicators, the main giveaway, I believe, can be found in differing attitudes toward sin. The true Church takes sin very seriously and warns about it constantly. Indeed, the main mission of the Church is to save us from our sins. On the other hand, one of the main goals of the Church which Francis and his followers are building is to diminish the importance of sin.

On several occasions, Francis has belittled sexual sins, referring to them as the “lightest of sins” or jokingly as “sins below the waist.” He reportedly told a group of Spanish seminarians that they must absolve all sins in the confessional, even if there is no sign of repentance. On one occasion, when asked about the exploits of a homosexual priest, Francis replied, “Who am I to judge?” But—with the exception of sins against the environment and “sins” of rigidity—he seems to take a “Who-am-I-to-judge” attitude toward almost all sins.

In a Substack article from a couple of years ago, I  explore the real root of the rot in the Roman church. See The Role of Concupiscence in the Decline of the Catholic Church. 

Related

Abortion and the Wages of Concupiscence Unrestrained: Why do the powerful arguments against abortion have such little effect?

9/11 Twenty-Two Years Later

Top o' the Stack.

Was 9/11 an 'inside job'? I take no position on this question. Here is a review of David Ray Griffin's latest.

To say it again: linkage does not constitute endorsement in whole or in part.

UPDATE

New York Tony writes:

Since I was a kid, I would annually see the demolition of public housing, buildings imploding and pancaking into their footprint in the last half-minute of a local news broadcast. So had millions of others. But in a macabre illustration of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, nearly everyone, including me, fell for it on 9/11: the Towers fell after the planes hit, therefore they fell because they hit, imploding and pancaking into their footprint, so geometrically conveniently.  And Tower 7 wasn't hit at all. (In Iran, a jet slammed into a smaller building which burned for three days but didn't collapse.) It was a controlled demolition (see videos here), so the only question, which I remember posing to you then as I do now, is who strategically placed and who detonated the explosives? And why did we not instinctively connect what we saw with what we remembered and so easily accept the official narrative? Someone did, even if we can't agree on who. 
If two different spatiotemporally contiguous events, E1 and E2, occur with E1 temporally prior to E2, one cannot validly infer that E1 caused E2. To think otherwise would be to commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There has to be more to causation than spatiotemporal contiguity and temporal succession. To show that 9/11 was an 'inside job,' however, one has to do a lot more than avoid the fallacy in question. One has to work out the details of a plausible account of who placed the explosives without being detected and who detonated them, and why.
 
I suspect Tony will agree with what I just wrote. Twenty-two years ago I looked into the matter and was unconvinced of the 'truther' allegations. To mollify Tony, I will now make a major concession. We now have a mountain of evidence that Deep State apparatchiki are hard at work in nefarious and lawless ways destroying our republic and "fundamentally transforming" — you know the origin of the phrase — the U.S. into something like the S. U.  These undeniable facts make me more receptive to the 'truther' allegations.
 
The hard Left's takeover of the Democrat Party also explains why the events of 9/11/01 were not taken as an impetus to bring the southern border under control. Uncontrolled illegal immigration without assimilation is a most effective means of bringing a democratic, constitutionally-based republic to its knees. 
 
Orwellian globalists love the word 'democracy,' but please note that what they mean by it is oligarchy. As I have said more than once, the subversion of language is the mother of all subversion.
 
UPDATE 9/13)
 
1) Rod Dreher asks: Was 9/11 a metaphysical event?
I have never gone in my interpretation beyond the conclusion that in some real sense, God had removed His hand from America, and had given us over to our sins, as He had done in ages past with Biblical Israel. Of course I have no proof of that, but if you look at the trajectory of our country since that terrible September day, you will find ample evidence to confirm the thesis.
2) Hugh Murray on 9/11.
 

Are New Yorkers Getting What They Deserve?

Arguably, yes. If you vote leftism into power, then you are collectively responsible for the destruction and depredation that you ought to know follows leftist policies as night follows day. Here is just one example among hundreds of recent examples of what is happening on the mean streets of NYC.  The video is graphic, depicting as it does an elderly black lady being beaten by a black thug with her own cane. Shocking? Not to anyone who has been paying attention to the Democrat-driven destruction of once-great American cities.

No doubt there are some decent people in NYC. My advice to them is to 'git' while the 'gittin's' good. A vote with the feet is also a vote with the wallet. An excellent way to defund the Left.

Of course, some cannot leave for various reasons. Must they shoulder any of the blame? Yes, if they didn't do their bit in opposing the destructive Dems.

As for the leftists who are leaving, but with their leftist views intact, they ought to wallow in the shit they shat. You and your deleterious garbage are not wanted where the morally straight and mentally awake flourish. You may earn more than the proverbial cold shoulder.

UPDATE (9/9).

1) Another woke joke of a crap hole is Portland, Oregon where rampant crime  has driven Nike out. Go woke, go broke.

2) Another reason for the rotting of the Big Apple is the presence there of so many useful idiots. One such is NYC Assemblyman Ron Kim who on Cavuto's show on Fox this morning uncorked the asinine canard that "no person is illegal." Kim didn't come across as stupid, but surely he must know, first, that no one ever said that any person is illegal, and second, that an illegal alien is so-called because of the person's illegal action. I would be very surprised if Kim lacks the mental equipment to distinguish between agent and action, which in plain English is the distinction between the doer of a deed and the deed done. Since Kim is not inherently stupid, what we have here is another example of willful self-enstupidation which has the effect of promoting  social collapse even if Kim does not himself intend to promote social collapse.  What makes him a useful idiot is the fact that he is being used by evil people who do intend the destruction of our republic. 

3) Here is a mad NYC mommy who has had enough and is not afraid to tell leftist hate-America swine what she thinks of them.  Civility meets a limit when your civil space is allowed to be invaded by the very people charged with its protection.

4) Powerline: "Texas Gov. Greg Abbott came out swinging on Friday. Abbott, who has rightly been busing thousands of illegals to U.S. sanctuary cities such as New York City, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, vowed to send even more migrants to Washington, D.C.

He wrote: “We will send Biden the same swift justice. And, we will add even more buses of migrants to Washington, D.C.”

UPDATE (9/10)

5) Let New York City Die. "So, let New York die. Let Chicago die. New Jersey, Massachusetts, everywhere these sanctuary leftists rule and are currently choking on what they’ve supported imposing on others, let them collapse. And enjoy the view as it happens." 

I don't agree with the Schadenfreude of the last line, but the only way leftist fools will learn is by experiencing in their own lives and at their own bodies the consequences of their actions. Probably the best form of resistance is by bussing all illegal aliens to so-called 'sanctuary' jurisdictions, whether cities or states, so that leftists can be brought to understand the consequences of their deliberate self-enstupidation.

6) The RCC needs to be condemned as well. In its current 'woke' form with Bergoglio the Termite at its head it is in dire need of defunding. Michelle Malkin:

Make no mistake: These are not desperate people suddenly seeking refuge from violence and harm. They are low-wage workers, pew-fillers and future ethnic-bloc voters being exploited by Big Business, the Vatican and the Democrat Party.

Pueblo Sin Fronteras may be the most recognizable name behind the caravans, but global Catholic elites play a central role in the coordination of this transnational human smuggling racket. Trump-bashing, American sovereignty-trashing Pope Francis donated $500,000 nine months ago from his Peter's Pence fund to assist illegal immigrant caravan participants. The subsidies cover "27 projects in 16 dioceses and Mexican religious congregations" for "housing, food and basic necessities," as well as "migrant" assistance programs "run by seven dioceses and three religious congregations: the Scalabrinians, the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary and the Hermanas Josefinas," according to the Catholic News Service.

UPDATE 9/12

7) Pope Francis to urge resignation of Bishop Strickland.  Figures. Defund the RCC! Send the cadre of termites into the desert for a long, long season of Besinnung. When the Archdiocese of Tucson sent us a contribution form, I sent it to the shredder. I should have written them back a nasty letter. Of course, many of the Protestant denominations are even worse. 

8) Corruption everywhere: FDA Gone Rogue.

New Yorkers are Getting What They Deserve

They are paying the just tax for willful self-enstupidation. Vote Democrat, get more crime. The morally decent should leave NYC, and indeed every Democrat-controlled craphole. Of course, some cannot leave for various reasons. I feel sorry for them. But they should have done more to prevent their city from being taken over by leftist scum, especially since they knew from experience the Giuliani years.

Here is the graphic video.

New Yorkers are Getting What They Deserve

They are paying the just tax for willful self-enstupidation. Vote Democrat, get more crime. The morally decent should leave NYC, and indeed every Democrat-controlled craphole. Of course, some cannot leave for various reasons. I feel sorry for them. But they should have done more to prevent their city from being taken over by leftist scum, especially since they knew from experience the Giuliani years.

Here is the graphic video.

Rod Dreher on the Ben Op and the Bon Op

One of the few free ones.

Excerpt:

“The Benedict Option is not available to us; it is either the Boniface Option or destruction,” he writes. “You cannot run and hide from Trashworld. Our only option is to despise it and to fight back.”

Leaving aside this inaccurate caricature of the Ben Op, what does Isker mean by despising it and fighting back? Though he doesn’t think so, that’s what we’re both after: rejecting what is evil in this post-Christian world, and devising a method of resistance. Having read Isker’s book, and sincerely appreciating what is good in it, my view is that his Bon Op is primarily about seeking worldly power as a means to impose Christianity — his kind of Christianity — on the people. (In this, the Calvinist Bon Op is a dwarfish parallel to the elvish proposals of the Catholic integralists.)

I like the parenthetical remark at the close of the quotation. Compare my Integralism in Three Sentences: Reasons Contra.

Wokery as Metastatic Managerialism

This article by the Swedish conservative Malcom Kyeyune from  2022 will enrich your understanding of wokery or wokeness.

But first I record an epiphany I recently experienced. I was puzzling over why Anheuser-Busch would so egregiously violate the sensibilities of their Bud Lite drinkers by using the effete and epicene Dylan Mulvaney as poster boy (girl?) for their product. It makes no bloody 'bottom line' sense! Isn't the company in business to make money? Why spit in the face of your consumer base? And don't the A-B execs have a fiduciary responsibility to do right by their shareholders? 

And then it dawned on me around the time of Tucker Carlson's defenestration. The very next day after our boy was booted out of the Overton window, an advertisement for the ESG outfit Blackrock appeared on Fox. 'ESG' abbreviates the ominous 'environmental social governance.' Blackrock promotes — wait for it — 'gender diversity.' What I came to see is that a vastly powerful and 'woke' managerial elite was calling the shots with respect to Anheuser-Busch and other companies. Pace The Who, "the new boss is not (8:02) the same as the old boss." The old rulers, the owners of capital, have been replaced by the new bosses, the managerial class.

James Burnham saw it coming in 1941. 

The core thesis of James Burnham’s 1941 The Managerial Revolution helps explain what is happening in the West today. A former Trotskyite who later became a leading figure in postwar American conservatism, Burnham argued in that book that Western society would not see the collapse of capitalism and its replacement by socialism. Instead, he maintained, America would likely see capitalism replaced by a nonsocialist successor—one dominated not by capitalists in the classical sense but by a class of managers that would come to control the real economy, regardless of formal ownership status.

This distinction—between ownership of, and control over, capital—was a topic of some discussion in the interwar years, with early analyses noting that apparatchiks in the Soviet Union had appropriated control over public resources. In the U.S., Burnham’s prophecy of a new managerial order came against the backdrop of the New Deal, which had coincided with a (somewhat understandable) loss of faith in capitalist ideas. The balance of power was shifting from property rights to a steadily increasing category of human rights, and Americans were becoming more accepting of state planning and control over larger parts of society.

Burnham saw America in the early 1940s as being in a somewhat transitory phase. The old, capitalist order was clearly ailing, and managers were steadily growing their power at the owners’ expense. Still, the process of forming a new rulership class was by no means complete. While “control over the instruments of production is everywhere undergoing a shift” toward managers, wrote Burnham, “the big bourgeoisie, the finance-capitalists, are still the ruling class in the United States.” New Dealism was not yet a “developed, systematized managerial ideology” that was capable of fully replacing capitalism.

But if Burnham were alive today, he might see wokeness as exactly that: a systematized, managerial ideology capable of standing on its own as a claim to rulership over society on behalf of the new class of managers. Indeed, many of the dynamics that worried or fascinated thinkers like Burnham during the interwar and New Deal era seem to reappear today in hypertrophied form.

Let us return to the question of ownership versus control. Here, wokeness serves to abrogate property rights, as seen in many controversies taking place in the business world. Consider the fate of the video-game behemoth Activision Blizzard, recently bought by Microsoft. After various ex-employees leveled allegations of workplace mistreatment and a frat-boy culture at its California offices, the company found itself under siege from multiple directions. First, the state of California sued it. Then, the media started covering the story with fervor. Various NGOs and activist organizations jumped into the fray, and the Securities and Exchange Commission launched an investigation. Though the original accusations against the company had to do only with sexual misconduct in the workplace, the list of demands made on Activision Blizzard quickly expanded beyond the original crime. Firing the offending workers or instituting mere workplace reform wasn’t good enough; rather, Activision Blizzard would need to open up its internal hiring and firing decisions to some sort of public review to ensure that it met various “diversity” targets. If one reads between the lines of the controversy, it becomes clear that the owners of a company now must subject their hiring process to review by other managerial institutions.

The main practical demand that wokeness places on society is a massive expansion of managerial intermediation in previously independent social and economic processes. With Activision Blizzard, a controversy regarding the workplace environment quickly metastasized into a struggle to implement new, alternative human-resources structures that corporate leadership would not control, and to which it would have to pay, in effect, a kind of ideological protection money. In real terms, this represents a nontrivial abrogation of property rights: you may still own your company, but don’t expect to be free to run it as you see fit without the “help” of outside commissars. Another example of creeping intermediation can be seen in the Hollywood trend to hire so-called racial equity consultants to ensure that characters from various minorities are sufficiently represented in movies and TV. Time was when a screenwriter would conceive of a plot and populate it with characters, drawing upon crude, inequitable instruments such as empathy and imagination; this is less and less permissible. Populating stories with various minority characters is not just encouraged but demanded—and one must do so only after employing intermediary consultants. Writing now requires intercession from a class of moral managers.

Seen in this light, wokeness is not a mere scholastic ideology. Indeed, the woke tend to be uninterested in any form of Socratic dialogue regarding their suppositions. In 2017, the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia descended into massive controversy after a writer, Rebecca Tuvel, published an argument that transracialism ought to enjoy the same sort of philosophical status as transgenderism. Tuvel appeared to make her argument sincerely, in an effort to explore the philosophical implications of people who transcend social categories, but the effort rendered her a pariah.

At this point, you may wish to take a break from Georgia 10-pt and really tax your analytic and reading comprehension skills by studying my 2021 Substack piece, Can One Change One's Race? in which I refute Rebecca Tuvel's Hypatia article. 

If woke ideology has little use for academic discussions, it is quite adept at asserting control over institutions. One cannot separate woke controversies from struggles over hiring and firing privileges inside institutions. What appears to be a fight over principles is simultaneously a fight over institutional prerogatives and access to resources.

Like the managerial ideology that Burnham anticipated, wokeness both asserts a wide variety of rights that supersede ownership and insists upon the creation of a permanent caste of managers to monitor the implementation of these rights. This tendency toward intermediation now extends to almost every facet of modern society, including in areas previously seen as foundational to the political system. Democracy, for instance, is now seen as needing various forms of intermediation so as to function properly. Without the input of managers, the thinking goes, the raw expression of the popular will can lead to aberrations, such as the election of Donald Trump or Britain’s decision to leave the European Union. Calls are increasingly being made to impose a layer of experts qualified to judge just what political questions and issues could be safely left to purportedly benighted voters to decide.

Why Won’t Leftists Enforce Existing Laws?

A reason, perhaps the main reason, may be gleaned from the following graphic:

The above stats are clearly in the ball park according to every study I have read. Heather Mac Donald has done outstanding work on this topic. I refer you to her.

One reason why leftists won't enforce existing laws is because (1) doing so would have a "disproportional impact on blacks," and (2) such disproportionality violates the value of 'equity' to which leftists subscribe.

Leftists (mis)use 'equity' to mean equality of outcome or result. 'Equity' is at or near the top of the Left's axiological hierarchy:  a high or the highest value to be striven for in our social and political arrangements. 

Someone who accepts both (1) and (2) will be loathe to enforce existing laws against homicide and other crimes. 

Now (1) is undoubtedly true. The reason is simple: blacks as a group commit more crimes than the other groups mentioned.  And so it follows that their incarceration rates are higher.  This is so even after we subtract off unjust convictions due to racial bias among jurors, and the malfeasance of corrupt judges, overzealous careerist prosecutors, and bad cops. 

(2), however, is undoubtedly false.  The reason is that 'equity' is a disvalue, not a value. The word as used by leftists is a neologism that conflates the distinction between equality in legitimate and attainable senses (equality of opportunity, equality before the law, treating like cases in a like manner, and such related ideas as due process which are the glory of the Anglo-American legal system) and, on the other hand, equality of outcome, which is unattainable except by police-state means, and even then not sustainable for long: life's  natural hierarchies will inevitably reassert themselves.

It might go like this: the USA under the yoke of 'woke' continues to weaken itself until it collapses under the  effect of its own decadence in synergy with  external attack and invasion by its geopolitical enemies. It is a good bet that this is in our near future, within ten years.  It is not inevitable, but there is no reason to be sanguine about the prospects of push-back. The oligarchic deep state will do everything and anything to crush Donald J. Trump and will of course if necessary attempt an 'Ecuadorean solution.' 

If the USA collapses, then the natural hierarchy of aptitude, ability, resoluteness, etc, will have reasserted itself.  We will then both collectively and individually face the Islamist-Sino-Russki trilemma: either embrace and affirm the new order, or accept political-cum-religious dhimmitude, or 'be put to the sword,' if not literally then by cancellation of livelihood and incarceration.

There will never be, and their cannot be, equality of outcome or result over the long haul because of the different aptitudes and abilities and interests of different peoples and groups of people.  

Asian Family Harrassed by Three Black Teens on NYC Subway

Leftists have something like the Midas touch. Everything  King Midas touched turned to gold; most of what leftists touch turns to crap. NYC and San Fran are prime examples. No surprise that these crapholes are bleeding population 'big time.' 

The Asians, bien-pensant 'liberals' apparently, blamc 'society' and not the racism of the black teens.  

More than a soupçon of absurdity is added to the story by the fact that "Cops are calling it a hate crime – something the Youngs say shouldn't be the case."

I rather doubt that the Youngs understand why it should not be a 'hate crime,' but Nat Hentoff does. 

Nat Hentoff on 'Hate Crime' Laws

An oldie but a goodie less than six minutes long by the late,  great civil libertarian.  We of the Coalition of the Sane and Reasonable need to punch back hard against the willfully self-enstupidated wokesters who promote 'hate crime' blather. As Hentoff points out, 'hate crime' is thought crime.

Here is a recent example of what we are up against:

“Under the proposed statute, ‘intimidate and harass’ can mean whatever the victim, or the authorities, want them to mean. The focus is on how the victim feels rather than on a clearly defined criminal act. This is a ridiculously vague and subjective standard,” he said.

“The absence of intent makes no difference under this law. You are still guilty of the crime because the victim felt uncomfortable.

“The bill will lead to the prosecution of conservatives, pastors, and parents attending a school board meeting for simply expressing their opposition to the liberal agenda,” Kallman said.

The proposed statute is obviously insane and anti-civilizational as any reasonable person will immediately discern. Like it or not we are now in the Age of Feeling.  

Let it be noted en passant that 'liberal agenda' is not quite the right phrase; 'hard' Left' and 'woke' are more fitting adjectives.  To say it again: don't confuse a classical with a contemporary liberal. The latter slouches toward the Gomorrah of wokery. A pox be upon all who so slouch.

Related: The Age of Feeling or the Age of Pussies?

The Asian family story here.

Pride?

What are you proud of? Your paraphilias? Is that what your 'pride flag' signifies? Does the plus sign at the end of LGBTQ+ signify the inclusion of every paraphilia? Might that be taking 'inclusion' too far? Is every focus of erotic interest legitimate?  Should every mode of (what has traditionally been considered to be) deviant behavior be normalized? Should every factual abnormality be viewed as normative?  

Are you really proud of your pedophilia, pedovestism, coprophilia, necrophilia and anthropophagy? 

Here: 

The parade that capped off June’s Pride events in New York City proclaimed the movement’s actual intentions quite clearly. The message was chanted all along the route, repeatedly and at high volume:

“We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.”

Now, there’s a sentiment that should make your blood run cold. It gives the lie to all those innocent protestations you’ve heard for years: “Gee, all we want is to live our lives and love who we love.”

It’s well past time to wake up and recognize the truth. We are living in a very dangerous time filled with threats to our physical and mental health, and to our immortal souls.

The pedophilic words chanted by a corps of New York drag queens were as vivid a wake-up call as can be imagined. This was perversion on proud display. It was an assault on childhood innocence, on family life, on decency, on religion, on basic human reality. It was as vivid and unignorable as a declaration of war.

You might call it our “Gender Pearl Harbor.”

The time for kindness and tolerance has passed. These people must be opposed on every level in every way.

The problem, of course, is that the gender movement has secured alliances among the leadership of government, business, finance, media, the arts — virtually every institution of society. The country has been severely compromised by this pervasive and insidious gender ideology.

You may look away . . .

. . . but it won't make the madness go away. Still, "Out of sight, out of mind" is a way to peace of mind. But is such peace worth wanting if its price is ignorance of imminent threats to your life, liberty, and well-being? Can you afford to ignore the sheer suicidal insanity of the Left? Examples are legion.

Here is a recent one: Illinois law requires landlords to sell or rent to illegal aliens.

The Republic is on its last legs when law is used both to undermine the rule of law, and to punish productive citizens who accept the risk of buying properties, refurbishing them, and then putting them up for rent or sale.