Why Civilization Requires Selfishness
Cruelty versus Self-Interest
Oversocialized eras breed people who are afraid to offend. I can only speak for America, having lived here my whole life, but I can see the disease spreading to Europe via American media, products and attitudes; it's a cultural invasion, not a physical one. Of all the invasions that occur, this is the most disgusting, since it is passive, and passivity wherever it occurs goes well self-pity, self-righteousness and low self-esteem, since nothing is worse than not being able to simply say, "This is what I want and I have my reasons, and your objections don't matter to me." That is the language of those who create, while "We might be able to do this if no one's upset" is the language of the submissive and reactionary. Given that this passive attitude dominates among the "cultured" these days, meaning those indoctrinated in the global culture formed by money and liberal democracy and cosmopolitan values, it is not surprising that most people are afraid to deny others a chance to have what they have.
In America, this is manifested by an attitude that anything exclusive is bad, and anyone who creates a community and then wishes to exclude others is bad, and that the highest good is making something good available to all comers so that those who follow the rules can "get ahead" in whatever imaginary social and political order exists. These things are truly imaginary; if you have food on the table, your family around you and do something you find meaningful, you'll fulfill your destiny - that alone is reality. But fantasy worlds prevail, in part because we're all surviving by being in denial of the impending collapse of the West, which has lost its cultural consensus and thus is being slowly divided, consumed and parasitized from within. What enables this destruction is in part the attitude that everything should be open to everybody.
Imagine an open frontier. You and your family find a place where no one lives, and through days of back-breaking labor cultivate fields, build towns and develop all the specialized skills needed for civilization. Your sons and daughters marry well, and bring in additional talents. All is fine, but now you're wealthy, and hence soon are surrounded by supplicants who want to be "allowed" into your civilization, usually because of some misfortune they perceive as having happened to them. What occurs if you let them in is the death of the natural selection that made your civilization possible.
You endured hardships, and undoubtedly, some died. Some of these died for no reason, but most died because of lack of judgment, intelligence, character or strength; the ones who remain are, by definition, adapted to living in the civilization that resulted. This is the only true equality of opportunity that exists: they were able to start something of their own and by endurance, create a lasting functional entity. It's not equality of opportunity to then let any wandering fool into the place, as they had no part in its creation, and thus are unproved. Unsurprisingly, societies that take on the general public have throughout history become bloated and collapsed. If one looks at this from a reality-world standpoint, and not a fantasy of religious-political implications, it's clear why this happens, and how the same mechanism that selects the best to create a civilization works in reverse to digest it.
In nature, you can see this order everywhere. Ants succeed in part because they rigorously defend themselves against other ants, and thus ensure that only the most competent ants prevail in their colonies. Egrets will fight for their prey against other birds so they can feed their own young, and there's nothing more noble or gentle than an egret. Why are humans different? The answer is simple: because the people who come up with these egalitarian ideas are products of a civilization many years after its founding, and not those who created it. To these people, any life outside of an already-established civilization is unthinkable; society will always exist, why not let in others? After all, it makes us feel good to give this gift. This process inevitably destroys every civilization infected with it.
For this reason, the best civilizations have during healthy times been places of a dispassionate nature, or perhaps we should say: highly selective in their passion, and unlikely to grant emotion to all comers much as a prostitute grants sexual favors to any man with the right wealth-tokens. It's healthy and fine to be proud to be Indo-European, and to deny others access to your civilization; after all, self-preservation is your first goal, and letting them in will destroy you. Similarly, it's healthy and fine to within that civilization deny breeding and wealth to those who are less capable. This might seem cruel to them, but it's the opposite of cruelty to your civilization itself, and from that comes benefit for everyone. This is the natural way, and it shouldn't be replaced by human ways, especially seeing how these human ways have led to collapse among us. Trust nature. Only then can we all fufill our destinies and live meaningful lives, regardless of the degree of fantasy-world social prestige and comforts we enjoy.
December 22, 2004