all 12 comments

[–]TheJamesRocket 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Essentially the general view of the altright is that our high trust societies have been ruined by non whites

To be more specific, the West was ruined by the second world war. Europe was blockaded and bombed into rubble, invaded from East and West, and then occupied by Americans and Soviets who installed puppet governments. The Eastern states got communist regimes that stagnated their economies, while the Western states got ZOG regimes that deliberately undermined their foundations. After the fall of the Soviet Union, all the newly free Eastern states had a ZOG regime imposed on them. While all this was going on, Jews were quietly infiltrating the media, entertainment, and academia, changing the cultural milleau into something that was toxic to white Europeans.

In addition the altright believes that jews on some sort of genetic level spread social ills intentionally among the host population they parasite, for example alcoholism, pornography, homosexuality and feminism.

Don't forget cultural marxism, moral relativism, faux science, white guilt, race mixing, a toxic entertainment industry, etc. The list goes on. Entire articles could be written on each and every one of these subjects, and indeed, there have been. The Jews are a type of people completely unique in human history. They are the only ethnic group that evolved as social parasites, with the ability to infiltrate host societys and enslave them covertly.

would the general sense of anxiety and happiness that permeates our society be solved?

Not entirely, no. We would still have the problems associated with an evolutionary mismatch. Humans have evolved to live as hunter gatherers, thats the type of environment which is natural to them. Humans have adapted fairly well to life as sedentary farmers, a condition which has been stable for roughly 12,000 years. But humans have been struggling to live in the industrial age, and they are really struggling with life in the information age. There is a huge evolutionary mismatch, which is demonstrated by the huge rise in mental health problems.

I would still feel a sense of unease with millions of whites around, my brain evolved to deal with a few 100 people in my local tribe and no more

That too is an example of an evolutionary mismatch. What you are referring to is called Dunbars number. Basically, the concept here is that the human brain is built to know about 150 people and maintain some kindof relationship with them (family, friends, coworkers, lovers, enemys, etc). Humans evolved to live in small tribes, not in vast citys with huge population densitys. These are abnormal and unhealthy conditions to live in.

I don't think that fundamentally I would feel a sense of fulfillment in our current society. There's no modern job that I would feel happy doing

What motivates men to work? There are a number of things. There is the base necessity of securing our physical needs of food, shelter, clothing, etc. The desire to gain respectability and have a way of life. But also important is a mans desire to attract a woman. Civilisation at its roots is defined by the marriage contract, a compromise between men and women. Women agree to stay faithful to one man, while men agree to work hard to provide for that woman. When the marriage contract is broken, one of the main drivers for men to work is disrupted. After the sexual revolution took root, Western men are no longer sexually incentivised to seek gainful employment. Increasing numbers of men have dropped out of the workforce altogether, finding other ways to avoid homelessness or starvation.

Even without the jews or non whites in our borders, the world would still have oceans full of plastics, supply chains spanning the globe to feed billions of people, enormous industrial pollution

These things are products of Globalism, which is in its essence Jewish imperialism (with the United States as its base of power). They built the world into what it is now. This was not predestined. The most grotesque feature of all this is the shipping of vast quantitys of food into Africa, which enables that continents useless population to multiply into ever more unsustainable proportions.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There are two types of people, Faustian/Revolutionary/Outward-looking/Urbanites and Romantic/Reactionary/Inward-looking/Ruralites. You are simply destined to be a Ruralite who lives a simple agrarian lifestyle tied to the land. There are white people who are destined to live in the cities, become seafarers etc too.

You would enjoy reading Technological Slavery and Anti-Tech Revolution by Ted if you haven't read them already.

But also yes, if we were in power and created pro-social urban zones planned around being walkable, human-scale etc then we could have the technological society with pro-social outcomes in my opinion. I used to be extremely techno-skeptic, and still am, but I do think it's possible it would just take a lot of time and energy to completely restructure society not only physically but the education, media etc too.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Hitler was kind of a weird mixture between those two types. He had a rather unique personality.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Indeed, he was also both politically and societally/administratively excellent which is also rare. Most people are stuck in either Personal thinking (individual tastes and preferences IE racist libtards), Societal thinking (domestic policy focus with ignorance of power IE most of the New Right), or Political thinking(cold realists, military strategists etc).

Arnold Leese: personal thinker

Oswald Mosley: societal thinker

Francis Parker Yockey: political thinker

Had Mosley and Yockey collaborated they could have had a good basis for pan-Europe but Mosley was too stuck in the anti-Communist mindset and Yockey seemed to lack patience and 'agreeableness' IE if people disagreed with him he'd just write them off and think of them as idiotic.

Hitler was able to be both great in societal thinking and political thinking, it seems his only issue was his lack of trust in other people's competence, ironically, mixed with his loyalty to friends and willingness to give them positions for loyalty rather than choosing someone more competent. The obvious example is Goering's position for rewarding loyalty, and the example of him taking on too much responsibility and not delegating is also in the military side where he seemingly tried to manage all strategy in all branches of the military. There's a Prussian Socialism episode about Manstein's book where Greg Conte and 'Hans' talk about this stuff.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Greg Conte? Is he still doing stuff?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah he's in the NJP and does this podcast on TRS

[–]FriedrichLudwig 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Non-whites and Jews make things worse and exploit the existing disease of the West, but that's what it is: pre-existing, they wouldn't have been able to take over if it wasn't already there. The main cause of our civilization's decline is technological progress and life being too comfortable. This was Ted Kaczynski's main thesis. The question of how to balance technological progress with the survival of a civilization in a healthy way that keeps it in touch with its natural roots (which is essential) hasn't been answered yet.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The question of how to balance technological progress with the survival of a civilization in a healthy way that keeps it in touch with its natural roots (which is essential) hasn't been answered yet. This was Ted Kaczynski's main thesis.

Eh not really. His idea is that technological society is just incompatible with any kind of humanity and must be destroyed.

[–]FriedrichLudwig 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah I meant "the main cause of our civilization's decline is technological progress and life being comfortable" part, should have worded it better.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All's well that ends well

[–]VacaLeitera767 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would recommend the work of spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset, more specifically the book "Revolt of the Masses".

Basically, the premise is that the astounding material successes of european liberal societies and the displacement of danger and suffering from everyday life has altered the nature of human existence to such an extent that it has turned the masses into a group of spoiled, indocile, violent teenagers, who take all the comforts of modern life for granted and do not realize that their existence and maintenance depend on enormous efforts by past and current elites in the development of science and technique. Instead of being grateful to their intellectually and morally superior peers (the excellent men), and accepting their naturally subordinate place in the social hierarchy, the masses now believe they have the right to shit out rules for everybody. This classification of "mass-man" is not based on economical background, but on pure moral and intellectual quality. The middle and upper-classes are, in fact, more likely to behave as "mass-men" than those who live a life of hardship or poverty.

The existence of average men has been elevated to such a high tier that true excellence is no longer recognized, and even despised. The unqualified masses of people now occupy institutional spaces that used to be reserved to the excellent few. The same thing applies to public and natural spaces, which are swarmed by intellectual children who previously would have been banned from such spaces, not even feeling slightly bothered by that fact, since they have no moral capacity to appreciate them. The good things in life, which used to be reserved to those deserving of them, have been massified and thus destroyed.

Scientific elites themselves have become degenerated as increased specialization means they no longer have the general historical and civilizational knowledge which had previously been required of ruling elites. While very competent in extremely specific fields of study, they are ignorant when it comes to history, philosophy, politics and the functioning of society, despite feeling entitled to have a say in such matters. That filthy criminal rat Fauci is a perfect example of such a despicable man.

I must however point out that Gasset should be classified somewhere between paleoconservatism and classical liberalism and believes fascism and national-socialism, just like bolshevism, are degenerated, violent, destructive impulses by the spoiled masses. In the 1920s and 1930s he correctly predicted the inevitable failure and demise of these ideologies, and says any alternative to liberalism must first recognize and incorporate its successes.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Now I don't disagree with these premises actually, but I would like to point something out, even if our population were entirely white and we had no homosexuals, women's rights were restricted, pornography was purged and access to any form of intoxicants were curtailed effectively, would the general sense of anxiety and happiness that permeates our society be solved? Humans were never meant to live around millions of other humans, even if I never had to see a black again, I would still feel a sense of unease with millions of whites around, my brain evolved to deal with a few 100 people in my local tribe and no more. Even without various corrosive ills moving through society and even if everything was prim and proper, would the general anxiety of being exposed to so many people be solved? In addition, even without jewish usury and capitalism, I don't think that fundamentally I would feel a sense of fulfillment in our current society. There's no modern job that I would feel happy doing and even if we achieved some sort of economic system that wiped out material scarcity such that we dint need to labor, I still feel as though I would be unsatisfied, I might have just been built to spend every day struggling to survive doing hunter / gatherer tasks and living in nature.

Unironically, this was the plot of a video game that came out a few years ago. The "villain" is a cultist who rejects modernity, and preaches about survivalism. Especially in the context of evolution and the natural order.

As for your other question about the unease of being around millions of other people, I also implore you to read about the tragedy of the commons and the great mouse utopia experiment. In which case, yes, constant population growth while having everything given to us starts driving organisms crazy.