or: Stressed Bodies Succumb to Sickness Pt 1
Now you've likely noticed that when you are fit, healthy, and well fed sure you still can catch a cold, but when you are over tired, stressed, and run down you catch cold much more easily. OK same goes for civilisations. When they are functioning efficiently and well, sure they can be conquered, but they are much more easily overrun when they are dysfunctional and weakened internally.
Hayek even put the theory that social organisation has evolved in a Darwinian sort of way. Societies that had a more functional organisation tended to survive better than those that didn't work as well.
So back to our theoretical malevolent spirit. From the last two posts we had got a picture that the sorts of things such an entity would try to produce in a society to destroy it were in fact happening in the West. We were building ourselves a nice path to destruction.
Today I want to begin the idea that there is a last twist of the knife: Making our societies stressed and run down so they succumb easily.
Then we noted that even the best intentions of humans over the past decades have gone wrong. What seemed like good ideas have had unintended bad consequences or have veered off into a destructive path. Tragically now a generation is emerging that would not and indeed could not defend itself against invasion.
We now see a last twist of the knife, our societies are being sapped of their very health, vitality and functional organisation. They will be prey to being taken over from without or within.
We are divided. There is internal hatred. There are seeming irreconcilable differences: we not only disagree but we cannot imagine how a rational human mind could even think what the other believes.
For ages Britain, Australia, the USA and some other western countries have had stable two party government. It wasn't perfect. But each party knowing that a slight shift in popularity could give government to the other party did much to keep them honest, and attentive to the electorate. So although nations were roughly evenly divided conservative / labour, or Republican / Democrat, there were two notable features – Firstly each party was pragmatic enough to do things out of the other party's play-book to make the country run better; Secondly whilst voters were loyal to their party, there was no hatred.
All this has changed. Changed in so many ways! But I will take just one.
Our nations are now divided on the very nature of what we want our society to be. This transcends party lines. And, at least on one side, it wells up to passionate hatred not just of the ideals of the other side, but of the people as well. We are nations psychologically in civil war.
“Left Vs Right” is too simplistic – even if we could agree what we mean by “the Right”.
“Left” is almost a usable description. “Progressive” is a term often used as a self-descriptor. Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton epitomise it in the US. The Antifas protesters, the Black lives Matter group, and the students who bar any dissenting viewpoints from being expressed on campus are all manifestations of it. But it is a multi-headed hydra. Different sections are passionate about different issues, but subliminally they all recognise each other as collaborators in a greater scheme.
That greater scheme is, simply put, a collectivist takeover of our nations.
The coordination of disparate groups and people of no discernible group to a common goal is so extraordinary that it again lends support to some invisible supra-human mastermind. Let me describe some of the themes of collectivist governments and you may recognise how different interest groups are all acting like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle fitting together to complete the picture.
Stress the group as everything and the individual as nothing apart from its role in promoting the welfare of the group.
Stress wealth re-distribution. The famous catch-cry was: “from each according to his ability: to each according to his need”
Stress centralised control of the means of production. (ie government says what factories will be built, what and how much they will produce; sometimes even what jobs people will do and where they will work)
Destroy religion: It is seen as a threat, or at the very least in competition with the Collective for control of people's minds.
Destroy the family: Once again family ties are seen as competing with the State for control of people's minds and allegiance. Hence the classic collectivist ploy of getting children to spy on their parents and to denounce any non-conforming views.
Destroy freedom of speech and thought: The views of the collective have to be ruthlessly enforced simply because they are philosophically arbitrary. All dissenting voices and views must be suppressed.
Look around and you will see groups pushing one or more of these objectives. Attack on family, Christianity (It is the dominant religion), freedom of speech, freedom of ideas and academic thought are all too obvious at the present.
There are also groups pursuing goals that a collectivist regime would suppress once in power. The are being fostered now precisely to cripple the economies and social cohesion of our societies to facilitate a collectivist takeover. Of course whilst our societies are crippled, we may succumb to invasion first! Either way if collectivists succeed we are in for a very nasty time! This is an important issued and I will examine it next.
It is a fact of history that everywhere collectivism has been tried it has failed. The result has in every case been economic failure leading to misery and starvation, it has led to dictatorship with its secret police, gulags and concentration camps, the spread of misery, and the stifling of thought. China is perhaps the only one that has emerged out the other side of failure, and only time will tell if this was temporary and due to a temporary slackening of the reigns of centralist control.
Do we really want this for our countries?