" I believe the primary motivator for this is the generation of social change created by the introduction of radically new technologies and the social ideas/structures that go along with them."
Nations outside the West have the same technology, but don't have the cultural Marxism we have. Examples are Japan, Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, India, the Caucasus states, Iran, Turkey, Russia. They have politics where nationalism is a given, and it is hard or impossible to attack normal society's way of life.
In Turkey, Iran, India, China, Japan, the media are in the hands of Turks, Iranians, Indians, Chinese and Japanese. It doesn't matter that they have the same innovation as we do, people are inherently nationalist and their media reflect that, and politics therefore reflects that.
We have cultural Marxism because the anti-Whites who control U.S. media and Hollywood have been brainwashing people every single day for generations. They follow their nationalism, not ours. Like a parasitic ant species making another anthill feed its queen and tend to its eggs.
The media haven't even been able to convince most people, only silence them. Even in the 2000s two thirds opposed homosexual marriage, for example, when the Supreme Court overruled the people. That would never have happened without the anti-White media owners demanding it as part of their attack on White society. The goal is to fill the West with mass immigration until Whites are a minority and can no longer form a majority threat against them, with the immigrants giving the Left the media created permanent election victories so they can steal money forever. It is not a natural process.
> Examples are Japan, Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, India, the Caucasus states, Iran, Turkey, Russia.
They also have negative population growth. Also there is no sign that their societies could have invented any of the innovations they are importing from the West.
This was a very, very, satisfying piece to read and speaks directly to many of my own persistent concerns.
Traditions become exhausted and, finally, incapable of transmitting whatever was valuable in the first place. Modernity annihilates in order to clear the ground for the emergence of new forms of behaviour and thinking that spontaneously generate their own traditions. At its best tradition constrains modernity, just as modernity ensures that the weaker or less desirable aspects of any tradition are curbed. The successive waves of destabilizing modernity are, perhaps, reaching their point of culmination. After that anything is possible.
PS Was gratified to read your nuanced treatment of Puritanism. Calvinism flourished in wildly disparate conditions: both Gaelic, tribal, Scotland and the Scotch (that is English) speaking Lowlands, south-eastern England, the Low Countries, Geneva, the South of France and Hungary. Sometimes Calvinism was strongest amongst nobles, at others amongst bankers, merchants and yeomen. The frequent equation of Puritanism and the Left is most unfortunate.
🗨 The tension we see between progressives and traditionalists manifests largely as arguments over which danger they view as more dangerous.[...] Blind adherence to traditionalism concedes defeat in the long game, and blind progressivism plays roulette with the near future.
Props for continuing with evergreen perennials from yesteryears! 🤩 The trad vs mod table is a doozy. As are many a tmt-cycle pinpointed across time & space.
💬 traditionalism as a low-energy state, one which is characterized by high levels of social stability and order, which are able to “sink” social energy, preventing it from overflowing into destructive channels 👌
This conceptual landscape gives us a reasonable hope to eventually land in soothing valley where all the stable attractors freely roam. We sure should eye the opportunities for ‘well-timed and well-placed actions, even seemingly small’, to dissipate the destructive energy surplus safely & effectively 😊
" I believe the primary motivator for this is the generation of social change created by the introduction of radically new technologies and the social ideas/structures that go along with them."
Nations outside the West have the same technology, but don't have the cultural Marxism we have. Examples are Japan, Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, India, the Caucasus states, Iran, Turkey, Russia. They have politics where nationalism is a given, and it is hard or impossible to attack normal society's way of life.
In Turkey, Iran, India, China, Japan, the media are in the hands of Turks, Iranians, Indians, Chinese and Japanese. It doesn't matter that they have the same innovation as we do, people are inherently nationalist and their media reflect that, and politics therefore reflects that.
We have cultural Marxism because the anti-Whites who control U.S. media and Hollywood have been brainwashing people every single day for generations. They follow their nationalism, not ours. Like a parasitic ant species making another anthill feed its queen and tend to its eggs.
The media haven't even been able to convince most people, only silence them. Even in the 2000s two thirds opposed homosexual marriage, for example, when the Supreme Court overruled the people. That would never have happened without the anti-White media owners demanding it as part of their attack on White society. The goal is to fill the West with mass immigration until Whites are a minority and can no longer form a majority threat against them, with the immigrants giving the Left the media created permanent election victories so they can steal money forever. It is not a natural process.
> Examples are Japan, Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, India, the Caucasus states, Iran, Turkey, Russia.
They also have negative population growth. Also there is no sign that their societies could have invented any of the innovations they are importing from the West.
This was a very, very, satisfying piece to read and speaks directly to many of my own persistent concerns.
Traditions become exhausted and, finally, incapable of transmitting whatever was valuable in the first place. Modernity annihilates in order to clear the ground for the emergence of new forms of behaviour and thinking that spontaneously generate their own traditions. At its best tradition constrains modernity, just as modernity ensures that the weaker or less desirable aspects of any tradition are curbed. The successive waves of destabilizing modernity are, perhaps, reaching their point of culmination. After that anything is possible.
PS Was gratified to read your nuanced treatment of Puritanism. Calvinism flourished in wildly disparate conditions: both Gaelic, tribal, Scotland and the Scotch (that is English) speaking Lowlands, south-eastern England, the Low Countries, Geneva, the South of France and Hungary. Sometimes Calvinism was strongest amongst nobles, at others amongst bankers, merchants and yeomen. The frequent equation of Puritanism and the Left is most unfortunate.
I catch a rhyming echo reverberating from hwfo.substack.com/i/34591470/evaluating-ant-game-moves-safety-progress-a-third-option 😉
🗨 The tension we see between progressives and traditionalists manifests largely as arguments over which danger they view as more dangerous.[...] Blind adherence to traditionalism concedes defeat in the long game, and blind progressivism plays roulette with the near future.
Props for continuing with evergreen perennials from yesteryears! 🤩 The trad vs mod table is a doozy. As are many a tmt-cycle pinpointed across time & space.
💬 traditionalism as a low-energy state, one which is characterized by high levels of social stability and order, which are able to “sink” social energy, preventing it from overflowing into destructive channels 👌
This conceptual landscape gives us a reasonable hope to eventually land in soothing valley where all the stable attractors freely roam. We sure should eye the opportunities for ‘well-timed and well-placed actions, even seemingly small’, to dissipate the destructive energy surplus safely & effectively 😊