After the Fall

As a good Western declinist, I have given some thought to how I think things should be set up after the Empire, instead of striking back, falls apart.

Of course what I think in my speculations bears no relation whatever to may happen. If anything. I follow the wise yogi, Berra, who warned against making predictions, especially about the future. What follows could be far worse than what we have now. Mad Max, anyone?

The Law of Unintended Consequences spares not even those who believe in it.

One place where I part company with the otherwise outstandingly acute thinker and articulate writer Jack Donovan is his almost uncritical admiration for the paleo-masculine gang and his hope for an apocalyptic breakdown of the current order, so that men, actual men in tribes, can once again, in his phrase, "Start The World."

In his no-nonsense The Way of Men, his opening quote on Rome --ironic and funny if you know Jack-- is from the 5th century Father of Western Christianity himself, St. Augustine, who died while gangs who've given us our word vandal were breaking down his city gates.. On the issue of gangs and governments, Jack and Augustine are largely in accord:

“Remove justice, and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms? A gang is a group of men under command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory , establishes a base, captures cities and subdues people, it then openly arrogates itself the title of kingdom, which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renouncing of aggression but by the attainment of impunity” —St. Augustine, City of God 

It's the removal of justice that is a bit worrying.

There are lots of places on the planet where governmental order has broken down and gangs have naturally emerged in their wake (or even, as in Mexico, in parallel or shadow form with the official State). Aside from Mexico, we have Somalia, for example. Or Liberia. And inside both strong and weak States we have all the various forms of Mafia-dom. Hardly appealing to me.

Jack shows an appreciation of many of the elements of Italian fascism, where both the masculine and the tribal were honored by incorporation into the State's basic values and structure. Central to that project was the genetic and cultural unity of the Italian people. It was no multicultural welcome-wagon.*

But if you ban genetic and ethno-cultural identity as a basis for a State and embrace the ideology of multiculturalism, then anyone and everyone can own the "nationality" of such a country. It ceases to be a country in the traditional sense and becomes merely a territory where anyone can live. Any resistance by the historical people who created the country prior to its liberation from genetic/cultural commonality is deemed rank and vile racism. Borders become a flimsy convention, useful only for shaping the tax system.

But in a post-implosion America, what kind of gang-State(s) would emerge? I'll leave that for another post. This one is already too long.

--
*The Jewish author of this article implies that any State based on an identifiable common ancestry (what he calls nationalist)  will eventually transform into a genocidally anti-Jewish regime. This sense is widespread among Jews and accounts for their dominantly left-liberal political bias. Israel, of course, is a predicament for that way of thinking: how do you justify a frankly Jewish national State and still handle your large indigenous Arab population so that a) you can maintain your self-concept as a Western liberal democracy without b) being swamped by people who every reason to resent and hate you?