By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to

Civilisation’s Suicide By John Steele

     I am a bit of a fringe dweller at this site, being a full-on survivalist, so I am grateful for all putting up with my rantings and ravings. I do not know what is going to finish of modern society, but I feel some Spenglerian breakdown will occur, if for no other reason than poetic justice; our kind built the world, held it in our hands, then let it slide into the dust of death, which could come from many different ways:

“Great civilisations are not murdered. Instead, they take their own lives. So concluded the historian Arnold Toynbee in his 12-volume magnum opus A Study of History. It was an exploration of the rise and fall of 28 different civilisations. He was right in some respects: civilisations are often responsible for their own decline. However, their self-destruction is usually assisted. The Roman Empire, for example, was the victim of many ills including overexpansion, climatic change, environmental degradation and poor leadership. But it was also brought to its knees when Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410 and the Vandals in 455. Collapse is often quick and greatness provides no immunity. The Roman Empire covered 4.4 million sq km (1.9 million sq miles) in 390. Five years later, it had plummeted to 2 million sq km (770,000 sq miles). By 476, the empire’s reach was zero.”
If it happened once, then why not again, for the Roman thought that they were invincible too, just like our scribblers?

“Collapse can be defined as a rapid and enduring loss of population, identity and socio-economic complexity. Public services crumble and disorder ensues as government loses control of its monopoly on violence. Virtually all past civilisations have faced this fate. Some recovered or transformed, such as the Chinese and Egyptian. Other collapses were permanent, as was the case of Easter Island. Sometimes the cities at the epicentre of collapse are revived, as was the case with Rome. In other cases, such as the Mayan ruins, they are left abandoned as a mausoleum for future tourists. What can this tell us about the future of global modern civilisation? Are the lessons of agrarian empires applicable to our post-18th Century period of industrial capitalism?

Collapse may be a normal phenomenon for civilisations, regardless of their size and technological stage. I would argue that they are. Societies of the past and present are just complex systems composed of people and technology. The theory of “normal accidents” suggests that complex technological systems regularly give way to failure. So collapse may be a normal phenomenon for civilisations, regardless of their size and stage. We may be more technologically advanced now. But this gives little ground to believe that we are immune to the threats that undid our ancestors. Our newfound technological abilities even bring new, unprecedented challenges to the mix. And while our scale may now be global, collapse appears to happen to both sprawling empires and fledgling kingdoms alike. There is no reason to believe that greater size is armour against societal dissolution. Our tightly-coupled, globalised economic system is, if anything, more likely to make crisis spread.”

     Western man is even more vulnerable because the basic survival instincts has been dulled by the comforts of civilisation, and humans have been weakened, not only deracinated, but physically made into the human equivalents of battery hens. Studies have shown that modern man is physically inferior to men of the past, and mentally as well in terms of real world problem-solving ability:

     That is why, in a real global disaster situation, such as a new Carrington Event, a massive solar pulse that knocks out techno-industrial society, 90 percent of people would die, something even the mainstream press accepts as a matter of fact:

     Sadly, the West is following the path of all other civilisations, as Spengler predicted, of ethno-racial, national suicide:

“Collapse expert and historian Joseph Tainter has proposed that societies eventually collapse under the weight of their own accumulated complexity and bureaucracy. Meaning the government becomes so burdensome and large that it can no longer maintain a monopoly on violence, as the oppressed begin to fight back.  Societies are problem-solving collectives that grow in complexity in order to overcome new issues and government violence is not needed to solve problems. However, the returns from complexity eventually reach a point of diminishing returns. This happens when the government creates so many problems with their solutions that the solutions become problems themselves (a great example of this is the Ponzi scheme known as social security.) After this point, a collapse will eventually ensue and the U.S. is obviously on the cusp.  More and more people awaken daily to the reality of what government has done to them; stealing their money, complete enslavement, indebting their unborn children, turning them into tax cattle, etc.”

     If there is some probability of this, and I believe that the probability is high, then it is our duty to think through the consequences of this, and formulate Plans B, C, D, … as necessary, rather than doing the same trusty old things of the past, and just waiting to escape via our  death, leaving the mess to the younger generation remnants.



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Tuesday, 02 June 2020
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.