Digging Our Own Graves By Chris Knight

     This is a depressing quote, but true, how across the world, Anglo Saxons, had the world, but let it slip through their hand, down the drain. Not even a fight, just a passive surrender, maybe not even that, but just dumbness. What force, or forces led to this pathological altruism? James Burnham in Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism (1964), says in a small passage that behind decadent liberalism, lies materialism, and consumerism, over-affluence resulting in weakness that leads to the pathological liberal mind set. Probably the decline of testosterone from plastics, a product of the affluence throw-away society has had a lion’s share to play too. There is not much manhood left out there. Shameful, but the Anglos will be forgotten, as they, and all that they produced, will be written out of history, if there is to be a future of history. It ids happening now, with the statues being torn down.
  http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/09/17/the-rise-of-modernism/

“In his book The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, Eric P. Kaufmann argued that the American elite became modernist, cosmopolitan and antiracist during the first three decades of the 20th century. WASP elites began to reject their own ethnicity and “Anglo-conformity” which was the process by which European immigrants came to America and were expected to assimilate into the American nation. Instead of assimilating into a common American culture, European immigrants were encouraged to retain their own culture and enrich an otherwise sterile, bland and philistine Anglo-America. This idea which gained traction on the Left in the 1920s was later broadened into multiculturalism.

Modern America, which is our own age, began in the Roaring Twenties. In the 1910s and 1920s, the Victorian establishment of 19th century America was discredited by World War I and our present day “mainstream” came into existence. The modern Left, which is left-libertarian, emerged in this period when the Young Intellectuals broke with Progressivism. The Progressive Era had a different idea of progress which was left-conservative, not left-libertarian. The modern Left was created when Modernism arrived in America in the 1910s and fused with progressive liberalism in Greenwich Village which rejected the old culture of Victorian America. The result was a new aesthetic form of liberalism – cultural liberalism or social liberalism – which valued expressive individualism, cultural egalitarianism and individual “experience” and is focused on transgression or cultural liberation whereas classical liberalism had been focused on the extension of political rights and laissez-faire economics.

In his book The End of American Innocence, 1912-1917, the historian Henry F. May describes the beginning of this turbulent transition between Victorian America and Modern America in the years before World War I. The Victorian establishment maintained what George Santayana labeled the Anglo-American “genteel tradition” which valued moralism, progress and culture. Traditional moral values were held in high esteem by virtually all Americans who were optimists who took great pride in scientific and technological progress and the growth of material comfort. This worldview was wedded to reverence for traditional British and American literary culture. The young Moderns of the Chicago Renaissance and the Village Renaissance rebelled against the culture of Victorian America, which they dismissed as shallow, moralistic and materialistic, and embraced the new culture which swept into America from Europe.

The roots of Modernism can be traced back deep into the culture of 19th century France to the poet Charles Baudelaire, the author of The Flowers of Evil, who argued that evil could be beautiful. In his book Scènes de la vie de bohème, Henri Murger had romanticized the carefree life of young artists in Paris who lived in the moment like gypsies attached only to a small group of … friends. The French poet Théophile Gautier called for art for art’s sake – the autonomy of aesthetics from morality – and rallied his fellow artists against catering to the tastes of bourgeois philistines. Gustave Flaubert declared himself “bourgeoisophobus” and led the way in attacking the culture of the bourgeois in Madame Bovary. This project was carried on by Émile Zola in the late 19th century. Édouard Manet broke with tradition and carried Baudelaire’s call for a new art for a new age into painting. In the French Third Republic in the late 19th century, this all built up into the cult of the artist. Henceforth, art would be about art and it would increasingly be about expressing the subjective inner world of the artist. Art would cease to be about objectively and faithfully depicting the divine or nature. As artists focused on depicting their inner selves, art would be liberated from the restraints of society, morality, rationality and ultimately from reality itself. The thing that mattered was the autonomy of the artist as the creator to express himself.

In the late 19th century, avant-garde poets, painters, novelists and playwrights began to march European high culture toward self-absorbed transgression against bourgeois cultural norms. At roughly the same time, Darwinism landed a major blow against Christianity. There was also an explosion in the size of Europe’s population. Alienated intellectuals began to have nothing but contempt for the masses. Friedrich Nietzsche and Oscar Wilde began to develop the novel idea that aesthetics shouldn’t only be autonomous from the limits of religion and ethics, but above them. Nietzsche argued that the masses were herd animals and slaves who held back the self-realization of higher men with their slave morality. Religion and traditional morality were bullsh*t masks for power relations. As the traditional limits of religion and morality began to crumble, the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen invented the ideal of the liberated New Woman and H.G. Wells popularized free love and the World State.

Naturally, people who were exposed to all of these new ideas and who began to see the world this way and reject the constraints of their traditional culture, i.e., Moderns, wanted to seek experience, cultivate their own lifestyles and live among other people who shared the same beliefs, values and mindset. In the decades before the rise of the mass media, they migrated to bohemian enclaves which arose in major cities like Montmartre on the Right Bank in Fin-de-siècle Paris, which was the epicenter of it. It was in these enclaves that a new Western culture was germinating in which the Modern self would be liberated from all restraints. It was inspired by Modern art which Picasso described as “a sum of destructions.” 

      It is one thing to imagine a small group of eccentric artists like Baudelaire and Whistler living this way. They were working with a small canvas. What happens though when it becomes normal for everyone to live this way because this is the ideal that is promoted by film and television?” What happens is that the world that we have falls apart, which is what we are seeing now, and which numerous awake commentators from Zero Hedge to Natural News, to the Unz Review are saying. The cultural core, the social glue, needed to hold a society together fails, and the world falls apart like a badly glued box. One is safe only for so long in the green leafy suburbs as the McCloskey’s in the US found out. Chaos and anarchy will reach out and grip you in its death-like grasp. Here is an article from the left putting the view that the “Castle doctrine” is apparently racist, even thought diverse people can use the same doctrine. Never mind, when a blood thirsty mob comes to your door, it is racist, if you are an Anglo white, not to just die, it seems.
  https://www.motherjones.com/anti-racism-police-protest/2020/07/the-st-louis-gun-couple-can-stand-their-ground-on-a-racist-legal-doctrine/

“In fact, the protesters were headed to city hall to rally against Mayor Lyda Krewson, who had recently released the personal information of people who had sent letters calling for the local police to be defunded. But that doesn’t really matter, as far as the law is concerned. What matters is that the McCloskeys—Mark shoeless and in khakis, gripping an AR-15; Patricia in capri pants, brandishing a pistol—were afraid. And that fear gave them special rights. Much of our gun rights regime is built on the consecration of a landowner’s anxieties into law. When the McCloskeys padded out onto their driveway with their guns, looking like country clubbers newly deployed into the fields of An Lộc, they could count on the impunity extended to them under what’s known as the Castle Doctrine. This was a common-law principle, only recently enshrined into civil law, that says that one’s home is one’s castle, and that an owner has the right to defend it with force. Because protesters were on private property, the McCloskeys could freely take aim. In fact, after the incident, the police told the St. Louis Dispatch they were investigating the protesters—not the McCloskeys—for trespassing and intimidation. The Castle Doctrine is how the Bastille storms back.”

     How is this “racist”? You tell me. And what would the Leftist authors do if the same number of say crazed right wingers, wearing Trump hats, came to their door, in a parallel situation? Make them cups of tea and discuss postmodernism?