The Perils of Being Overcivilised

Much of the time, violence IS the answer

At least once a day on my X feed, there will be some story posted from somewhere in Europe, the USA, or another part of the civilised world about a heinous crime or deadly act of negligence committed by some piece of biotrash from the third world. Accompanying this will be the statement, “we shouldn’t have to live like this.” A common sentiment, to be sure, and one which is gradually becoming more and more widespread, even among normies. As the attempted replacement of White people in their own lands with violent, low IQ third worlders continues apace, it’s going to become even frequent (both the violence and the sentiment).

Now, much of the reason why these acts of violence and crime take place is because of the trend toward depolicing and the decriminalisation of, well, crime that has become de rigueur across the Western world. There is a definite ideological reason for why progressive leftists push this trend, and the history of the Left from the French Revolution through the Russian Revolution to the present testifies to their use of criminals as “enforcers” against the kulaks. The purpose is to create a two-tiered justice system which disadvantages the law-abiding and those who exercise legitimate self-defence. The West has been moving in that direction for years and this was just recently formally codified into the UK’s legal system.

But just as relevant to this discussion is the fact that pretty much every Western nation on Earth has been thoroughly longhoused by decades of prosperity, decadence, and feminism. The imposition of the human resources regime at every level of government has thoroughly hogtied the ability of Western peoples to respond either politically or demotically to violent interlopers. Doing so would be “mean.” We have to be “welcoming.” Indeed, we need to prefer these people over and against our own people, even our own families. So the next time some homeless schizophrenic walks around the subway swinging his arms randomly at other people, just grin and bear it. You wouldn’t want to hurt his feelings, after all.

The commenters are right - we shouldn’t have to live like this. Yet we do. Why? Because we’ve become over-civilised, too afraid to utilise legitimate violence in the times and places where it would be appropriate and even necessary. It all goes back to a distinction we need to make between “chivalry” and “manners.” Both of these are social technologies which are intended to maintain decorum within civil society at the demotic level. By that, I mean that they are designed to enforce proper behaviour and ways of conducting oneself.

Chivalry, in one form or another (the term should be understood beyond the narrow medieval sense of the word), is the masculine way of maintaining social decorum. Men protect their women, men enforce proper behaviour from other men, men act to nullify dyscivilisational activities that would tear down society and endanger those under their protection. Not just during the Middle Ages, but well into modernity this was the norm in Western societies, from Prussian duels to Old Western gunfights. A threat to the community provoked an “immune response” from the men who acted, often violently, to stop that threat. This is an entirely good and right response, and though this type of masculinity would be described in some circles as “toxic,” we should understand that it is anything but.

On the other hand, “manners” is what happens when a society becomes effeminised and starts working to suppress genuine masculinity. With the rise of female social and political power in the 19th century (women’s suffrage was part, but certainly not all of this), the longhouse began the transition to “manners” at the popular level. While chivalry is concerned with right behaviour, manners are concerned with right appearance. Societies for “social improvement” sought to teach the commoners how to be “nice,” which fork to use and when so as to appear genteel, essentially inculcating the types of behaviours valued by schoolmarms and society ladies. Certainly, schoolboys should not be allowed to settle their differences on the playground using fisticuffs. That’s just not nice! There’s a direct line from browbeating by Victorian scolds to the type of idiotic “zero tolerance” policies seen in our publik skoolz today.

The problem with manners-driven societies is that they are eminently hackable by bad actors. Because the overarching drive is to be “nice” and “welcoming,” playing the victim immediately ingratiates you to such people. Sure, you might be sexually trafficking thousands of the natives’ children, but if you call your critics “racist,” then you can get away with it. indeed, in most Western societies today, the focus has turned to finding ways to stop the men in those societies from acting chivalrously to prevent the criminal-victim classes from acting on their baser impulses. In decades past, Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny would have been lauded as heroes who acted entirely appropriately given their circumstances. Now, because they were “mean,” they are condemned by large chunks of our population.

So we find ourselves in a situation where Britons are forced to tolerate Pakistani grooming gangs, Germans are forced to tolerate Muslims driving cars into large public gatherings, Americans are forced to tolerate our underclass of dysfunctional black and brown criminals, and so on. In reality, native Britons would be fully, completely, EMINENTLY justified in hanging every last Pakistani involved in a grooming gang. But the UK has become so “civilised” that they no longer have the capability of defending themselves against hostile, aggressive third world biotrash. The mindset of tolerating those people, and others like them in other nations, is a disease of the mind and heart that stultifies the immune response which in other eras would have quickly solved the problem. Ultimately, dealing with them is not so much a matter of raw ability, but of the will to do what it needed.

Indeed, this longhousing is a large part of what drives modern gun control agendas. The desire to render potential victims of crime and left-wing violence unable to resist is a key goal in the Left’s agenda. Casting it as a function of “being a decent human being” by not hurting someone else when you defend yourself and your family is how they cordycept millions of effeminised Westerners into accepting and promoting it. This is why who gets to use the means and tools of force is such a contested area in modern societies. We all know that “gun control” isn’t really about “saving lives” or whatever. Left-wingers could not care less about that. It’s about robbing eucivilisational people of the ability to defend themselves from dyscivilisational criminals and revolutionaries.

But see, the Left doesn’t want you to be able to do so because the criminal element is a vital part of the Left’s enforcement of its revolutionary goals and aims (that’s why the French Revs stormed the Bastille and why the Russian Revs emptied the prisons and used the prisoners as enforcers, per Solzhenitsyn). The Left did this to a lesser extent here during the George Floyd Summer of Love and has been trying to do this with their anti-Tesla campaign, despite being “formally” out of power. This is because the Left understands something which normiecon “muh constertooshun” types don’t, which is that violence is a way of exerting power. Ultimately, the threat of violence is the basis of ALL power, authority, and legitimacy, which is why they don’t want people on the Right being capable (or barring that, willing) of exercising violence on behalf of themselves and their people.

Chivalrous men having both the means and (more importantly) the will to exercise violence undermines the modern, feminine “state monopoly on the use of force” expounded by Max Weber which ultimately undergirds so much of the supposed moral rationale for the HR state. The reason modern Western countries are facing many of the problems which they are, especially with respect to immigrants, invading foreigners, grooming gangs, sex traffickers, etc. is simply because the leadership has lost the will to punish criminals decisively, but feel justified in punishing its own citizens who object because they know that westerners still retain a respect for law and order and governing authority, in other words, they are overcivilised. However, the time is coming when our citizenries will need to seize the means of power and dispossess the Left and their pets of their place.

The only way to exercise power is to use, or at least be willing to use, violence. The old saw that “violence never solves anything” is just a stupid canard designed to make five-year-olds get along and not fight over their blocks. It has no relevance and no place in any kind of adult society. In point of fact, the million and a half times a year in which armed Americans use, or use the threat of, their guns to defend their homes and families from criminals puts the lie to this. In point of fact, dead violent criminals are an objective good - and virtually every society prior to around 1950 understood this. Men who are ready to duel and otherwise use violence for eucivilisational ends are men who (not so) ironically create more civilised societies.

As our world trundles through its collapse phase and the decentralisation of power accelerates, we’re going to see the erosion of the ability of governments to stop masses of their citizens from devolving the capacity and authority to use violence to themselves. Every “we shouldn’t have to live this way” scenario pushes more and more people to considering that they won’t live this way any longer. The people who blithely assume that the Islamification of Europe and the brownification of America will continue on their current trajectories indefinitely are likely to be rudely awakened sooner rather than later. This is certainly what ought to happen. At some point, the longhouse will be rolled back and men willing to use violence for eucivilisational ends will rise to the fore. The criminals, the hostile foreign invaders, the left-wing infiltrators and underminers will be suppressed. I’d suggest being mentally and physically prepared for that day when it comes.