SUBVERT THE DOMINANT PARADIGM
by Brett Stevens
Every age has a dominant paradigm. People rely on them as guiding principles used to interpret other rules. We also use them to justify our actions, so if we want to get a new project approved we relate it to the dominant paradigm and others automatically nod yes. When everything fails, the dominant paradigm remains beyond criticism, and so we usually respond to failure by demanding a new or more forceful implementation of the dominant paradigm as a solution.
In WWII, the West let the losing team define the playing field. They said they were nationalists who stood for truth; as a result we became "internationalists," or those who do not believe in borders and embraced relativism, which makes truth a privilege of the individual to interpret. They said they wanted a thousand year kingdom so we demanded more disposable products and culture. They stood for what was timeless, so we reduced our scope to novelty.
Most importantly we rejected the idea of consistent government. Why have a system, like those evil totalitarians, when we can just patch together whatever we want from other systems, like picking a mix of products at the store? Giddy with victory, drunk on a wave of industrial wealth, we surged ahead with these non-ideas and made a system out of them. Since it takes decades if not centuries to see the results of bad planning, and our consciousness fit within that window, we assumed that all was OK.
Now the cracks have become big enough for even mainstream sources to observe.
At the core of our belief rests a very old assumption. About a thousand years ago, people started scheming to get rid of leadership over them. With the new wealth brought about by Europe's rise and standardization of early proto-industry, individuals wanted to be free from the old rules and standards. They want it all for themselves if a product could be sold, why not make a huge profit? Forget sitting around and doing the right thing; take the money and run, off to a vacation home and never deal with it all again.
The reasoning for this arose in part from the nature of cities. Where once Europe had been mostly towns, with the rise of organized industry people did what was convenient, not what was sensible. They located it all in the same place and then threw up housing nearby so workers could be easily found and easily fired. This made life bleak and anonymous where once it had been a network of people collaborating in both local function and local culture. Change began slowly at first but accelerated quickly.
Old as it was even then, the assumption presented itself as "new" like the new technologies and learning that was going on at the time. This idea was this: instead of the individual working toward a goal shared with others, society should work toward the goal of the individual. The individual alone decided what was real -- interpreting the Bible, creatively re-analyzing the laws, converting culture into personal statements -- and should be supported in doing so by laws that defended the rights of the individual.
At first this new method rolled through the wealthy. Then it trickled down to the military, then the artisan classes. This became "the Enlightenment" where various artists, writers and what would later be called "intellectuals" proclaimed themselves the only arbiter of values and their own fates. Culture faded as did folk wisdom and the idea that there was a right way to do anything. People assumed that a right way would be derived as science made its findings, from the world itself as if it were written on a wall by the hand of God.
In the 1700s this new ideal of individualism made it to the merchant classes. They felt their chains fall away: instead of having to run their businesses as was sensible for the community around them, limited by what people found acceptable, the business itself became a justification. If it made money, it was right. Because people buy products, this quickly became "if it sells, it's right." Democracy entered a new phase at this time where it was presumed that the population at large could cancel out its own errors and make decisions by popularity contests known as voting.
This set the groundwork for the problems of WWII.
After the great liberal revolutions of the late 1700s, wars raged across Europe to bring the new individualism to other nations. When these quieted down, the other nations that had not fallen by warfare fell from within to a series of disastrous revolutions. This created unstable republics that in trying to balance obvious needs and needs of appearance to the voters turned toward intense patriotism. This in turn brought about a series of wars culminating in WWI, where simmering conflicts from the past century and a half exploded.
WWII grew out of WWI. The same unresolved issues re-emerged and this time, the opposition stated its policy clearly: the root cause of European dysfunction was the liberal revolution, currently at its most virulent with the Bolshevik movement. In response Axis powers shifted all the way to the right of what stood within the contemporary political horizon. They did not however venture fully to what had come before their time, and so remained a mixture of past, present and future ideas.
In response, the Allied powers construed themselves as the opposite of the Axis -- an opposite of an opposite -- and justified their military intervention with the idea of individualism. To make this clear, they wrapped together the ideas of freedom, liberty and equality as the ultimate expression of individualism. At the same time, they adopted ideas from the Bolsheviks (social welfare) and Fascists (social engineering). The resulting mishmash seemed to be everything to everybody and by sheer industrial power and numbers, it won.
At that point, nothing could delay the expansion of equality.
Children educated in wartime propaganda grew up to be the most Bolshevik generation the West had thus far created. Seeking to one-up their smugly self-satisfied parents, the 1968ers reformed the West into a Bolshevik version of its past. Culturally the changes became most profound, reversing years of social order with the mandate for equality at all costs. As part of this, they brought back a concept from the French Revolution: the abolition of borders, with all workers being citizens of the world, and the destruction of national identity as a result.
Enter "diversity." Originally this word meant variety, but in the usage of the 1968ers it meant mixture. Like all good revolutionaries, they wanted to export their ideas to the world by obliterating anything that was different. Diversity became a way of incorporating foreign populations into otherwise indigenous nations as a means of erasing that indigenous character so that no culture, heritage, values or social mores stood in the way of the individual. The individual would triumph over the kings at last.
Conveniently the diverse helped form a new voting bloc that united all of those who felt they were misfits in the old order. Non-indigenous third world minorities, people with different sexuality, hedonists and bohemians, people with hatred of their own origins, decadent heirs and heiresses seeking purposes, religious minorities and others united to form the new coalition. With a thousand years of history behind it, most people felt bad about opposing it. And so it passive aggressively wormed its way into power.
This dominant paradigm can be subverted in two ways.
First one can speak the simple truth about internationalism, a.k.a. diversity or multiculturalism. Diversity does not work. It never has. Anywhere it has been tried, irrespective of what groups were involved in the mix, diversity has brought about social decay and racial enmity without achieving what it promised, which is unity among workers of the world. If anything, it tends to cause nations to splinter into indigenous groups and then assorted hangers-on who, like the Roma or Jews in Europe over the past millennia, never found complete acceptance.
The case against diversity is bigger than black versus white. The media and individualist coalition likes to style anti-diversity movements as the result of "racism," or a pathological need to feel better than others. In truth diversity addresses a bigger question which is survival as a nation. Do we extinguish indigenous groups and replace them with a mixed-heritage group like those found in third world nations worldwide? In other words, the survival of the national entity hangs in the balance. You can be all black, or all white or all Asian, but not in the middle. Then you disappear.
Diversity fails on every level it has been tried. Religious diversity split Europe for centuries with numerous wars. Ethnic diversity even among the same race, as in Russia and Ireland, creates constant warfare. Even too much diversity of social class creates constant tension and power struggles as seen in 1800s England. The countries designated diversity paradises -- many races, religions, and social classes together in presumed harmony -- such as Brazil, Mexico and South Africa all prove to achieve third world levels of corruption, crime, filth and disorder.
We might view diversity as the triumph of individualism in this way. All third world countries except those in sub-Saharan Africa possess diverse origins. But there can be no more individualistic place than a third world country. In chaos, there are no rules. Take what you want, if you have the power. Make money from anything. Engage in whatever sexual or intoxicant license you wish. Nothing like culture, heritage or values obstruct the individual in the third world.
The second way to subvert the dominant paradigm requires abandoning individualism.
Unpopular as it perennially is, this topic constitutes the core of creating a new civilization. In order to have collaboration, people must voluntarily give up some freedoms in exchange for some obligations. More importantly, they must find a way to do this without resentment. Civilization at its core represents an opportunity to avoid the lack of personal power caused by alienated or isolated societies like hunter-gatherer groups or third world anarchies. Collaboration must be willful and joyful or resentment turns into hatred of origins.
No one wants to think about giving up individuality on any level. When analyzed however individuality turns out to be somewhat of a chimera. Our characters are mostly formed of what we inherit, as are our abilities, and the freedoms we need generally consist of a lack of interference by others when we are doing normal and useful things. If crazy people do not block us from having careers, families, businesses, hobbies and social groups, we do not need freedom.
The only force which guarantees such non-interference is culture. Unlike freedom, which requires a state to apply it, culture consists of collaborative attitudes. These come from within -- not from external interference as state power and ideologies like individualism do -- and require people to see a goal in common and so to find the best ways of achieving it. Under such a society, anyone who works toward the goal even obliquely will not be interfered with.
This requires us to stare the most difficult question of life in the face: what constitutes a good life for us, as individuals and as a group? We either accept the emptiness of the universe and balance it with our ability to make an earthly paradise of social order, family, learning, art, spirituality and friendship, or we reject this and retreat into ourselves. The result produces a lack of direction which makes every person forever search for meaning, only to find it lacking in the external means of ideology, socialization and business.
Subverting the dominant paradigm constitutes our only escape from that neurotic world.
Brett Stevens writes about nationalism and conservationist topics. He has been published on Alternative Right, American Renaissance, Counter-Currents and Amerika. An IT worker by day, he spends his time hiking through available wilderness and pursuing quality reading matter.
Copyright Manticore Press 2013