Guess who's coming to dinner?
As we gather around tables across the land, getting ready to gorge ourselves on justified excess, no one is actually fooled into thinking this holiday is significant. We all know it's a day off and time to spent with the family in a nation where you work 50 weeks a year. Hell, even if it were "National Rectal Exam Day" we'd love it as a holiday. We are surrounded by food, family, and comforts; insistent Death is far away.
However, the people who are neurotic because of their wealth and positions of relative uselessness - everyone from the soccer moms to the newspaper commentators to the talking heads on television and the "celebrities" - will moan about the genocide of American Indians. There will be self-blame, and weeping, and then self-flagellation, of course, because it's easier to cry over a situation than to fix the problem that caused it.
A little blasphemy is in order. First, "Native Americans" is a bigoted term since they weren't native to America; they were Asians who came later than the Europeans who apparently first explored this terrain (1 2 3) and assimilated what was left of those settlements into their own. Second, they weren't genocided. They were aided in their self-destruction, since by the time the white man arrived the Indian empires of North and Central America had ceased to function autonomously and had collapsed inward.
This isn't to excuse what some fanatical Christian ex-criminals like Hernan Cortez did when they tore up remnants of an ancient culture, melted them down into uniform size blocks of uniform weight, and mailed them back home so that God could have greater funding. Clearly he's a hollowpoint to the forehead case as well (in my view, "Christian euthanasia" is all but redundant). However, the Aztecs were at the time already necrotic and unable to reference the world outside of their own civilization, part of a long downward slide.
The Maya were in a similar position. Surrounded by the ancestors of modern day Mexicans, who served as slaves for both empires, the tribes were distinguished by their neo-Semitic appearance, being of hybrid Asian-Caucasian origins. They once had been great civilizations, with the Maya being descendants of Toltecs and Olmecs before them, and the Aztecs having had a warlike, glorious reign of centuries across modern Mexico. Yet the original impetus to those societies, and the blood that had formed it, was gone.
I am not arguing here that they were Caucasian. I don't know, and I don't think I care. It is possible they were, or that they were Semitic, or other forms of Asian hybrids, but that requires more conjecture than I care to undertake. What is certain is that they were once a different tribe than that of their slave populations, who were squat, brown and somewhat stupid, hence were subjugated viciously by the Aztecs and Mayans in order to put them to some practical use, since they would never invent civilization on their own.
How did Hernan Cortez, with a few hundred men with rifles, conquer the mighty Aztec empire? The answer is simple: the Aztecs had degenerated as both empire and in quality of individual warrior, and thus were no match for rifles even when they outnumbered him ten to one. But the more enduring answer is even simpler: Cortez promised "rule by the majority" to the slave tribes of the Aztecs, and then marshalled them into an impromptu army which - as is the case with all slave populations - far outnumbered the Aztecs, and was inflamed with blood lust to kill them.
It is a classic case of resentment. The dumber, uncreative, servitude-bound people are promised a heaven if they overthrow their "oppressors," who with that "oppression" have created a great civilization where otherwise mud huts of a single story and communal sewers would have reigned. When one looks at the isolated jungle civilizations of the Yucatan region today, one can see roughly the raw material both Maya and Aztec empires were using: simple people whose ascent to civilization would not have happened without the brutal "oppression" that turned them into non-chattel slaves for a great empire.
The Aztecs never get blamed for being "racist" or for their slavery, at least in the American press, but they did what any sensible people would have done with these blockheads: they turned them into beasts of burden. And as the Aztecs were, like the Romans and Mongols and every other empire that has risen from muck, generous masters who cruelly punished infraction, the lives of these blockheads were improved in exchange for loss of "freedom" to live in jungle poverty, afflicted by disease and their own failure.
Being somewhat dumb, and not very creative, these people could not create a civilization, but were glad to be given an easy excuse: namely, blame their masters, or whatever the Aztecs were at the time that was of a clearly different genetic status than the slave races the Aztecs used as manual labor. Modern people like to try to paint these issues in black and white, but they forget that in Africa, the more advanced black races enslaved the Bantu (average IQ: still 60) because they saw those blockheads as nothing but pack animals. Same case in Asia with imperial Chinese and Japanese using Koreans, Vietnamese, Thai, etc. as indentured servants because of their lesser tendency toward civilization.
This excuse, resentment against those who could create what they could not, gave these slave peoples incentive to join Cortez and overthrow their masters, crushing the remnants of a great civilization. I say remnants because, over time, the Aztecs had become interbred to a small (probably 1-2%) degree with their slave populations, and also, had become correspondingly inbred in an attempt to conserve the creative force of their civilization. This column doesn't argue that either of these is the "cause" of their decline, or that it is not, but that both are symptoms of the decline of those who created the civilization, and their replacement by those whose role was limited to living in the civilization created by others.
In the Yucatan, the Maya faced a similar problem. Their religion was in decline; their royal bloodlines had decline; few people even remembered how to decode some of their most ancient knowledge. They, too, had interbred with their slave populations and failed to keep up internal breeding standards, producing a group of people with no ethnic ties to the civilization in which they lived. Once again, the creators were gone and left those who could survive only in an already created civilization, or, of course, return to living in mud huts by open sewers.
One of the sacred myths of a modern time is equality; we can all do the same work if exposed to the same indoctrination, training, and opportunity. This is true where what is called for is something of a basic nature like maintaining equipment others have designed, advancing already created technologies, operating a printing press or being a CEO. You don't have to create anything, but you must be adept at manipulating that which others have invented. Such people lack the ability to create civilizations, and while the average Caucasian or Asian in America may be able by virtue of natural intelligence to do better than mud huts, they are without the civilization creation impulse and ability.
Something similar, at a more advanced degree, afflicted "American Indians." These people, being of predominantly Asiatic descent from the most recent influx of displaced persons, had once created civilizations that ranged from mud huts/open sewers to relatively advanced tribal cultures. Another sacred modern mythos is that of "profundity" in Otherness; we like to believe in Noble Savages who, having never left nature, are in every way more spiritually aware than we are. This mythos is promoted relentlessly in our media, who love cliches because they're crowd pleasers, and thus recently transitioned from placing oracular "American Indian" characters in movies to using "people of color" in the same roles.
The civilization creators among "American Indians" were in the minority. For the most part, the tribes lived separately and crudely, eking out an existence and occasionally making extinct the species around them. They had little medicine, frequent internal wars, and superstitious pantheistic religions that demanded they appease primitive gods with sacrifices. All of this is taboo to say today, because of the Noble Savage myth, but civilization creators both among Europeans and "American Indians" recognized this, and thus enslaved the lower grades of "American Indian" so that civilization could prevail.
(Mythology as in non-supernational spiritual belief, where forces of our natural world are personified as Gods who are not moral, but capricious and unconcerned with the ways of most humans, is a positive and healthy thing in my view. When you start getting Gods in magical, pure worlds who need us to impose their order on this earth, neurosis has set in. The best aspect of knowing truth versus falsity is to spend no emotion on falsity. One can focus on reality, and create, where others indulge in tears and righteous anger over spiritual symbols with no grounding in reality; symbols that, in the Judeo-Christian tradition at least, are opposed to reality.)
At the point in time when Europeans made a serious effort to colonize the Americas, the Indian populations from Inca to Cherokee were in decline. Weakened by internal wars, loss of leadership bloodlines, and famine owing to lack of economies of scale, these tribes had lost the impetus toward civilization building and were collapsing. In their prime, no group of men with flintlock rifles could have beat them, as in the woods a rifle of short range and limited accuracy is only of marginal advantage. But their warriors were not those of the days of civilization building, and thus despite their bravery, they lacked the intelligence to wage war effectively and were slaughtered.
There were exceptions, as Custer found out at Little Big Horn, when effective "American Indian" leaders arose and kicked some ass. These were the minority of all interactions and tragically for the "American Indians," did not occur strategically, thus were of little effect in stopping the war machine from rolling over them. Once carbine rifles and other rapid fire devices were invented, the days of the "American Indian" were over, as they faced a technology of substantial killing power. However, this only occurred at the same time Nietzsche was writing his books, when the writing ("FAILURE") was already on the wall regarding "American Indian" survival as tribal entities.
Now, of course, a modern society sits on America, and periodically - because it is easier to cry about a symptom than to take action to fix a problem - the wailing about how "noble" and "pure" and "innocent" the "American Indians" were begins. This is an artifact of a bloated, wealthy, neurotic society, and each of those three causes contributes to the other. Its wealth means no direct contact with the source of production, creating a bureaucracy. As a result, people who can't exist outside of civilization (or mud huts) are bred, causing bloat. Then, because it is in decline and doesn't know why, the neurotic whining and harrowingly insane self-examination begins, usually concluding in the crying about symptoms, since taking action is a Big Deal that would mean leaving comfortable civilization-life to reinvent civilization - something these people cannot do.
So we gather around tables and pig out, because that's what our society offers us, and wealthy leftists shed tears for "American Indians" whose culture they would have eliminated by forcing them into the same boring jobs all of us, "successful" or not, are forced to have. The passive side of society whine about "genocide," and the burly and aggressive side crows about how great our open-air-mall of a disposable country is. Both are avoiding the most obvious truth: much as the Inca, Aztec, Maya and "American Indians" were in decline, so are we, and the truth-avoidance is one of the most potent symptoms.
Civilizations collapse when the population of those who can do/create/lead is replaced by those who would not exist, or would exist next to open sewers, without someone else having created that civilization first. To the dismay of racial fanatics, this includes many causes, ranging from inbreeding (generally occurs in groups of under 1000 people) to outbreeding to bureaucracy, which breeds fools who cannot do anything but follow the letter of the rule, to wealth without challenge. America's greatest hour may have been WWII, because she arose from her stupor to face a real enemy; when Vietnam rolled around, the decadence was so great that Americans collapsed when opposed with even a minimal military presence ("FAILURE").
As every civilization declines, it replaces observations of reality with observations of its own belief system and operations, things we might call "pleasant illusions" or "populist mythos." The idea that savages were noble falls under this aegis, as does the concept that we can train, educate and force people to be equal in opportunity and output. These oversimplifications exist because the truth offends, whether it's the fact that not all races are equal, or that not all individuals are equal (translation: being white doesn't automatically make you better than anyone else), or that bureaucrats and academics tend to be small-minded fucks who could not survive a night in the open forest, even if we made it easy on them and gave them a machete and flint.
Indo-Europeans, the group including both Caucasians and pre-Caucasian Europeans, have been among the greatest and most ambitious civilization builders, and history shows us they have the farthest to fall as a result. Rome collapsed inward; eventually, some barbarians showed up and kicked in the front door to show the world it had become dead inside. And what killed it? We can list symptoms: decadence, alcoholism, inbreeding, miscegenation, cowardice; however, these are symptoms not causes. What killed it was its self-referentiality as a limit of perception. The people who inhabited Rome when it fell were not the same as those who had created it. They were those who could not create it. They were people who could only relate to the society itself, and who could not conceive of having to create one without a prexisting civilization.
The cause of this self-referentiality is wealth without a goal. When one is clearing forest, conquering enemies, cutting fields, etc. one has a constant goal: achieve civilization. Once civilization has occurred, the enemy goes within and becomes complacency; people lack any ability to deal without reality outside of the imposed value system of that civilization. Thus you have silly rules like "don't kill," which makes no sense unless you're 100% dependent upon a legal system to kill deviants for you. Suddenly, not offending your coworkers is more important than being able to survive a night in the forest alone.
What follows after this happens with amazing rapidity, considering that history is normally measured in millennia: within a few generations, dysgenics - the opposite of eugenics, or breeding better people - occurs. Those who succeed are the socialites and flatters, while those who lead and therefore are often bearers of socially unpleasant truth, are demoted and breed less. The people who enjoy bureaucratic jobs outbreed the others. Dysgenics occurs first within a population, and then external populations are bred into it; without resorting to gutter racism, we can acknowledge that mixing two populations replaces them with an "average" of both, not the "best traits" of both, since they self-bred for different things (otherwise, they'd be the same population).
It only takes a few generations. The small-minded rule followers get the big houses and pretty girls because to them, any life outside of a bureaucratic job distant from the rule of nature is inconceivable. Those who strike out independently, think creatively and could create a civilization are not needed, and are bred out. They tend to become artists or intellectuals, and thus survive for a generation or two before they cease to see the need to breed. Degeneracy spreads, first in the cities, but eventually everywhere, as the social pretense that governs the city is imposed on all subjects to avoid socially-unpleasant truths. Such was the case in Rome, in Tenochtitlan, in Chichen Itza.
Civilization is more than technology, or learning. It is the ability to exist in some degree of harmony with nature while asserting an order on human society that makes it more of a warlike, conquering, creative mindset. When that is achieved, technology and learning occur naturally. When it is absent, bureaucracy replaces technology and learning. Those who create civilization are the great heroes, while those who uphold it in its final days are the unsung villains; passively, they destroy by NOT creating, without taking the assertive destructive action one would expect from, say, a Biblical Satan. The true evil for us mortal humans at least is becoming passive and self-referential.
But look at us now. We have wonderful technology, and we've conquered all of nature. Our enemies cower in fear of our nuclear weapons and world police. What could go wrong? Nothing outside of our society, definitely, but that's the catch: we're not looking for enemies within, and therefore, we are as surely falling as the Aztecs or Romans. Enjoy your mass-produced dinner. Enjoy your dysfunctional, combative family relationships. Enjoy tolerating your dysgenic relatives. Enjoy your bureaucratic job. These are all things which become necessary in the final days of civilization.
For Indo-European civilization (the "Western" world) an ugly and powerful weapon was required to bring it to its knees. Much as the slave peoples of the Aztec and Maya, who could not create civilization, felt "oppressed" and thus overcame their masters, paving the way for the downfall of their society, populist revolts in Rome and Greece replaced the civilization builders with what I call "the crowd": the group of people made undifferentiated by their lack of distinct traits, by their passivity and self-referentiality both on a personal and social level. The crowd only exists after civilization has been founded by others.
The populist revolt in the modern West is also the one that helped end Rome: Christianity, and its secular counterpart, liberalism (note: this includes modern "conservatism," which is essentially reactionary liberalism). The crowd feels that the civilization builders have oppressed it, and thus they have made everyone equal, so that any leaders bearing socially-unpleasant truth can be revenged upon and forced into not breeding. Surely we have made a paradise, now that with the same education/indoctrination/opportunity we can each and every one be whatever we desire, regardless of breeding, talent or character!
They felt the same way in Rome, too. Finally, "enlightenment" and "progress" had come, and there was no more discrimination against those who - having immortal souls as ordained by a God in a supernatural reality separate from this one - simply had the misfortune to be born into poverty, stupidity or mud huts and open sewers. They were souls, people, after all. This is the language of the civilization in decline. It separates reality into Gods and men, individuals versus nature, but doesn't recognize the continuity of the whole, which as a smoothly functioning machine demands that civilization builders rise above the rest in order for civilization to exist.
Hope you like that turkey which was grown on some mass farm staffed by illiterates earning $5/hour. Maybe you'll enjoy those imported potatoes, mashed with butter filtered and processed by machine, and all the other good things that one requires only society's tokens to self-referentially purchase. If you're lucky, you can even have a good cry over the "genocide" of the "Native Americans," who you view as a society more profound and truthful in every way, and (sob) we just killed them. No, my friends - what killed them is the same death that awaits you. And if this coward of a society is all that opposes it, evil is entitled a feast as well. That which is dying must die, so reality can be reasserted, and the civilization builders if any remain can start anew.
This Thanksgiving, let Death feast.
November 25, 2004