Final Destination, Part II

As far as the regimes of the West are concerned, the citizenry is something to be forced into submission and, ultimately, replaced as they outlive their usefulness.

How Europe dies: the state

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This essay is the second of a two-parter. I had to split the original draft once I realized how long it was getting. You can read Part I here. I’d also planned to release this entry much sooner, but I wasn’t able to complete it before going on my vacation. I apologize for being unable to stick to the plan as advertised.

Before getting into the meat of the matter, check this out:

Source

These stories have become increasingly common. Here’s another example:

Source

And another:

Source

We often hear the problem in the United States described as one of “lawlessness.” I’m not so certain about it any longer. It seems to me the real problem is that we have a large number of laws that permit criminal, disorderly conduct. The reason America is an “anarcho-tyranny” is because our anarchy is rules-based. This makes our situation especially problematic, because the state won’t prosecute clearly disorderly conduct, while going after the low-hanging fruit, like code violations or tax evasion.

I’ve said enough about anarcho-tyranny, but it’s worth noting just how absurd it can get. This is a parody of a country at this point. America is managing all the absurdities and contradictions at the moment (or is it?), but there’s going to come a time when it’s going to be impossible or unaffordable to do so.

That time might be years, maybe decades, down the line. Whenever it is, that’ll be what we call “The End.”

Regimes Stoking Civil War

In her interview with Adam Van Buskirk I discussed in Part I, Alex Kaschuta opines that she feels things are headed somewhere, somewhere bad, and that there’s little we can do about it. Anyone who’s paying attention knows how prevalent this perception is. Not only am I not seeing much push-back against this perception, what push-back exists is wholly unconvincing. That’s a bad sign of where we’re at.

Evolutionary psychologist Gad Saad has drawn a lot of attention lately for his commentary, specifically on the prospect of civil war in the West. Rod Dreher wrote recently on his Substack about some of Saad's recent remarks:

Gad Saad, the Lebanese Jewish biologist teaching in Canada, said the other day that we are headed for war in the West. He means civil war — and given that he is someone who grew up in Lebanon, I take his word more seriously than I otherwise would. I’m seeing this sentiment voiced more and more these days. What could that possibly mean? You know I’m prone to doomerism, but something holds me back when I read and hear people talking about that. But then I wonder: am I like the people I criticize, dismissing the Very Bad Thing not because the evidence doesn’t lead to that conclusion, but because the conclusion is too horrible to contemplate?

Here’s what Saad said:

Source

I explained recently that it’s important to consider the perspective of those making these sorts of comments prior to ascribing any sort of authority to them. Like the well-known Selco Begovic, Gad Saad is a survivor of civil war, having fled Lebanon as a child with his family to Canada. Like Selco, Dr. Saad’s worldview is shaped by this traumatic experience. It’s tough not to be a doomer when you’ve lived through doom yourself. We shouldn’t however, take their observations as prophecy. The U.S., nor the West as a whole, wasn’t and still isn’t the same kind of place as Lebanon, even if similarities do exist. It’s always easy to get carried away with the parallels.

That said, I’ve been concurring with Saad’s commentary as of late. The West as a whole is on the path to civil war due to the combination of the Great Replacement - purposeful radical demographic change - and the Great Destabilization, a term coined by me - purposeful breakdown of order and rule-of-law - bringing about a new totalitarianism under the control of the cosmopolitan leftists who dominate the ruling classes of the West. Rapid demographic change will always produce conflict and instability. You can blame it on prejudice and xenophobia, but just remember: nobody likes being replaced. More important, demographics is destiny - if cultures are the product of people and people are all different, then it shouldn’t be controversial to say that remaking a country’s demographics will make a different country.

In his most recent essay (as of this writing), Dreher explained why the West’s immigrant-worship is incurring costs we won’t be able to afford going forward:

We are all conditioned to think of immigrants in a certain way, especially if we are American. But immigrants, or migrants, are people, same as us. Some are better, some are worse. Some are better suited to make good neighbors than others. An Irishman told me last year that it’s not the case that “migrants” are making Ireland unlivable. It is the case that migrants from the Middle East and Africa are. Ireland has had plenty of Ukrainian migrants since the war started. According to him, the Ukrainians have assimilated pretty well — or at the very least they are working to assimilate to their new land. By contrast, Africans and Middle Easterners by and large have not. But the overculture won’t permit that observation to be made, because these obstreperous migrants have brown or black skin.

White liberals (including some who identify as conservative) have a weakness for projecting their own ideals onto the blank screen of Third World subalterns. Whereas Westerners in a colonial age would have seen these people as beneath us “superior” Westerners, now it has flipped. But to see these people as innately superior is as much a lie as what preceded it. Nobody in the West wants to recognize, for example, that black-ruled South Africa is falling apart, and that the once-persecuted blacks have now become persecutors. Nobody in the West wants to recognize that many Arabs are far more shockingly racist than white Europeans — and indeed that the Arab world, especially Saudi Arabia, lives with slavery even today.

When we bring in migrants, we are bringing in their culture too, for better and for worse. The liberal lie is that this “diversity” is always positive. It’s not, as any walk through a major European city not in the East will verify.

Here’s a mainstream (as in not associated with the political right) news outlet talking about rising crime in Germany:

In an example of the Overton window shifting, it’s become a little bit more acceptable, though far from sufficient, to say that immigration does cause problems, especially when it comes to crime. That said, notice how quick proponents of mass immigration are to point out there are other problems which could be contributing to the growing crime and instability, such as the economy. One would think that mass immigration during economic hard times isn’t a good idea, but the proponents of mass immigration aren’t trying to make sense. I think that’d be clear by now.

Take note of how high the level of discontent is in Europe concerning their respective immigration situations:

Source

It doesn’t really matter where or what the prevailing political climate is in each country: vast majorities are dissatisfied with the immigration situation. It’s also worth noting that countries like Hungary, where just 54% are dissatisfied, have far fewer migrants than countries like Germany and Italy.

Dreher, American expatriate living in Hungary, explained:

We don’t have to worry about that in Hungary. Despite what you will have heard in Western media, we are a democracy where law and order is kept, in large part because unlike most of the rest of Europe, the Orban government has followed a sensible migration policy — one that is quite popular with Hungarian voters. As the Hungarian historian and journalist Laszlo Vezpremy wrote a few years back in The American Conservative, the day is likely coming in which [Hungary Prime Minister] Viktor Orban is remembered as a liberal.

No matter what anyone says, nobody loses sleep over the fact there are too few people coming into a country. Conversely, high levels of immigration inevitably cause widespread discontent. A country simply cannot absorb large numbers of newcomers and they especially cannot absorb large numbers of those who are culturally incompatible with their new countries without conflict arising. If all peoples of the world were compatible with one another, we’d never fight over anything.

Yet, the authorities in many of these countries insist on doing precisely the opposite of what the public demands. They’ll let nothing, not even their own citizens, get in the way of “cultural enrichment” of these countries. How can conflict not arise when those in power are attempting to foment it?

The level of discontent throughout the world over their internal situation is real. Take a look at what’s happening in Britain, once thought to be an example of multiculturalism done right:

Source

Meanwhile, in Germany, a song titled “Auslanders Raus!”, meaning “Foreigners Out!”, has gone viral.

Source

Why is this song going viral? Things like this are the reason why [WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT]:

Source

It’s since been revealed the knifeman is a 25-year-old Afghan who arrived in Germany as an asylum seeker. Since then, millions just like him have been given refuge in the country.

What has been the German government’s response to incidents like these? Punish its own citizens for daring to speak out, of course:

Source

Marie-Thérèse Kaiser made remarks specifically implicating Afghan migrants as responsible for a disproportionate percentage of the rapes. Imagine: making a factual observation incurs a punishment similar to that of a heinous crime like rape! Exactly who does the German regime think it represents?

The following meme has emerged following the stabbing in Mannheim (here’s a variant of the same meme):

Source

In case the irony is lost on anyone, the German state is suppressing its own citizens in the name of tolerance, while the beneficiaries of tolerance are expressing gratitude through violence against both Germany state and society. If you didn’t watch the video, the police officer who was stabbed was attempting to subdue the citizen who was trying to stop the murder. Only when the officer was stabbed did police finally turn their attention to the real problem. It’s really poetic, isn’t it?

Throughout the West, societies need to reassess their priorities: is it more important to maintain the perception of anti-racism and openness? Or is it more important to maintain order and safety for its citizens? “Both” isn’t an answer. The point people like Gad Saad are making is that the West’s openness and sympathy for outsiders has been lethally exploited. It is too late at this point to attempt to strike a balance because authorities throughout the West haven’t only forgotten who exactly they serve, they’ve forgotten how to actually maintain order. Policing speech and thought isn’t how it’s done.

Which is why nothing will be done about any of this. As far as the regimes of the West are concerned, the citizenry is something to be forced into submission and, ultimately, replaced as they outlive their usefulness. This is a recipe for internal conflict and why so many, myself included, are convinced we’re on course for it. What else could be the outcome of the ruling class and the populace being at such odds with one another?

One last word from Saad:

Throughout human history, there was one thing that protected one’s tribe: The recognition that the tribe across the river was dangerous and would attack if it thought it could win the battle. This is history. Imagine that now in the West, our most fundamental virtue is to REJECT any survival reflex in seeking to protect ourselves against ideologies that exhibit perfect animus toward us. Rather, we celebrate those ideologies and seek to turn our societies into mirror images of countries where such ideologies rule. It is the ultimate civilizational collective mind parasite. It is the ultimate Greek tragedy. It is Collective Seppuku albeit void of any honor or dignity: “Take our children, take our women, destroy our culture, mock our societies, destroy our religions, but please please please don’t call us bigoted. I’ll show you the way to my children as long as you don't call me a bigot.” The greatest tragedy that humanity has ever seen because it is fully self-inflicted due to parasitic thinking and suicidal empathy. [Save this tweet]

All around you, you see signs of surrender, along with measures by the Regime (I discussed this in Part I) to prepare Americans to capitulate to the increasing violence to come. No matter their public pronouncements, I think the Regime is well-aware of what the future holds in store. But since admitting your political enemies were right about you all along is fatal to one’s legitimacy, they’re instead doubling down on bad policy, alternately choosing to condition the populace into accepting what comes instead of resisting. Whether it works or not is a question the future will need to answer, but let’s be empathetic for a moment:

If you were the Regime, would you do it any differently?

What If It Does Get Really Bad?

I made reference to La Violencia in a previous essay. It’s what the ten-year civil war in Colombia between 1948 and 1958 is known as, though when I visited Colombia last year and learned about the conflict, I didn’t hear anyone refer to it by that name when discussing it.

It’s a most interesting civil war, probably among the most interesting I’ve ever seen. For one, there’s not a lot of information on it. It’s not a well-documented conflict; why that is, I’m not sure. For another, it was followed several years later by a lower-intensity, but much longer-running conflict that continues to this day, ultimately overshadowing La Violencia.

The most interesting characteristic of Colombia’s 1948 to ‘58 civil war was the form of fighting which took place. There were no real battles, no real “warfare” to speak of. Instead, La Violencia saw Colombia descend into total anarchy. While there was a military component - there exists one, in every armed conflict - most of the war was defined by factional violence between the Liberals and Conservatives. Those who comment on a hypothetical Second American Civil War point to Lebanon, Spain, or Yugoslavia as examples of what the future holds in store. I think Colombia, however, is an underrated example of what could be if in a worst-case event.

The YouTube channel The Cold War released a superb video last December providing as good a summary of La Violencia as you’re going to find. Watch when you have time:

The point in the comparison isn’t that America’s situation is similar to that of Colombia’s back in the late 1940s. I often say that the closer you look, the more you see the differences even between two eerily similar cases. I actually don’t think America’s divide is a political one, not entirely. It’s definitely not a sectarian divide. The actual divide just happens to align along the political divide. What America is dealing with is an ongoing cultural revolution involving the deliberate destruction of Western institutions and society, combined with racial hatred and leftist politics, all while looting what they view as rightfully theirs.

La Violencia merely serves as an example of a different kind of civil war, one where a general breakdown of order occurs and the state is incapable of restoring it. This is the sort of situation I see the U.S. and the West headed towards. Not an organized, high-intensity Spanish Civil War-type conflict, nor even a Haiti-style total societal collapse. Instead, I see a scenario where the state manages to remain intact, but internally, order unravels. We see examples of this throughout history and the world today. It can happen here. There’s plenty of good arguments for why we won’t see something like Lebanon, Spain, or Yugoslavia in America, but there’s no argument against why even a temporary breakdown in law and order can’t happen here, especially if the people in charge are working towards that goal.

The Death Of Europe

Rudyard “Whatifalthist” Lynch’s latest video discusses both the coming U.S. civil war and what he calls the “European Troubles.” They’re two of 10 potential future wars he sees as possibly occurring within our lifetimes.

I’ve set the video to start at the part about both conflicts, but do watch the entire thing when you have a chance:

I don’t entirely agree with Lynch about the U.S. civil war - when it’ll happen and what form it’ll take - but I do agree on his assessment of what Europe faces during the remainder of the 21st century. The devil is in the details and Europe simply doesn’t have favorable demographics, economics, or politics to weather the coming storm. The U.S., by contrast, is more demographically balanced, will remain one of the world’s largest economies, and has a more decentralized political system that doesn’t rely on a single point of failure like so much of Europe does.

None of this means the U.S. will be some oasis in the desert - my argument is the polar opposite - but it’s to say the consequences will be far worse for Europe than it’ll be for the U.S. Where as America has some “ballast” and capacity for recovery, Europe has none.

X account “Labrador Skeptic” explained it another way:

Source

By the turn of the century, the U.S. may very well remain intact. Not as confident about Europe.

Life Post-War

One thing I haven’t discussed much of is what American society will look like following our next civil war. Primarily, that’s because it’s too far off in the future. However, we can draw some hints based on what life is already like today.

Dreher once again:

Honestly, I have no idea how America is going to deal with the race issue over the coming decades. There seems to be a growing recognition that the US lost its collective mind over the drug addict George Floyd’s death, and adopted crazy policies that ended up enriching BLM activists while making life worse for everybody else — especially the much higher number of dead black people, owing in part to the hated police withdrawing from black neighborhoods. What do you do, at a societal level, with the fact that so very many inner-city blacks are caught in seemingly inescapable dysfunction? What do you do when fewer and fewer people believe anymore that the main problem facing American blacks is white bigotry? This is the only mode of thinking and discourse that American elites understand (witness Joe Biden’s disgraceful, race-baiting commencement address at all-black Morehouse College).

I discussed much of this in Part I, so I won’t re-hash this matter too much. I’ll say, though, that one of the reasons nobody really talks about George Floyd any longer is because we all understand we (as a collective, not as individuals) went crazy over absolutely nothing in 2020. If there was anybody who deserved to be consecrated as a martyr, Floyd was not it:

Source

Not only is it too late to undo what’s been done, there’s no “safe” avenue for speaking the truth and altering the narrative to a more realistic form. Ideally, Blacks themselves would be the ones to speak up and lead the way. But racial solidarity, along with fealty to the Regime, is more important.

What does this have to do with the future? One of the things you’re going to see is the increasing balkanization of Blacks. Not in a Yugoslav, geographical sense, but in a social sense. They’re already a very distinct group considered a nation unto themselves. They also cannot continue demanding special treatment and exemption from the rules while insisting upon access to the same resources and spaces as everyone else. As I keep saying, we can afford to appease them today, but tomorrow, the cost of doing so will be exorbitantly high.

This sounds like segregation, but keep in mind: Black Americans already occupy their own spaces separate from everyone else, while also having access to theirs. It’s hard to say how the balkanization will unfold, except to say I think you’ll see demographic “hardening.” Black neighborhoods will get Blacker, White neighborhoods Whiter, etc. An actual apartheid is unlikely, but people generally tend to avoid conflict, so I’d guess you’d see more of a self-apartheid. In the future, especially after a civil war, the state will lack the wherewithal to support the civil rights regime of today, so it’ll be more difficult for Blacks or anyone else to claim they have a right to be anywhere they want at all times. Freedom of association will return in spades, even as the civil rights regime remains in an official sense.

That’s society. What of our culture? That begins with recognizing where we are today. The video below, that of a man who spent many years living in Mexico and has now returned to the U.S., illuminates how many Americans are just the walking dead:

Source

X account “Aristophanes” had something similar to say [bold mine]:

Being in Mexico for work has reminded me how there are tradeoffs, good and bad, in low and high trust societies.

Guadalajara is a nice city, and unlike tourist friendly places like cancun, which are designed around being very navigable and accessible to foreigners, it's just a place full of people living and working.

There are reminders that it's not entirely safe everywhere, such as the high amount of police and security, or physical measures like gates and fences and walls.

But on the flip side there is a certain refreshing feeling to the absence of mass regulatory capture. The US feels very fake and inorganic by comparison with its ever present franchise chains.

Closer to the industrial area, the residential neighborhoods have cafes and small lunch restaurants open in residential driveways under canopies. Everyone is out and about, walking or eating or chatting on the phone.

Every car I've seen is a manual, motorbikes are everywhere, and the city just feels a bit more alive yet lazy and relaxed compared to most American ones.

Although depending on where you go, there are symbols of crushing poverty as you head out from the economically viable areas. But what stands out most to me is the way manpower seems to work at businesses. There are people there to diligently attend to things everywhere. It’s very cost inefficient but so much nicer, even at work there is a woman who puts in a full day running a cafeteria in the break room and cooking, while otherwise constantly sweeping up everything.

I kind of get the feeling this is what manpower felt like in America before the 50s, McKinsey and it's consequences have been a disaster for Americans. Tolerable inefficiencies might cost money but they make an atmosphere feel way less pressured.

I feel like in the US we have the worst of both worlds. A focus on squeezing every penny out of everything, total efficiency minmaxxing, and heavy regulatory capture.

Maybe we don’t enjoy things, we just consume them.

Even in Mexico City, which I visited, I can see what he’s talking about. No, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a tremendous amount of road rage, for one. That said, there’s a liveliness to it all you just can’t find in an American city. Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world and is currently embroiled in a civil war, but people still manage to enjoy life, it seems. I can see why many Americans have chosen to live in Mexico. That said, this isn’t about our southern neighbor, not today.

More from Aristophanes:

In the US , we used to be a high trust society but rapidly no longer are. In most cases we are much safer, but our food is poisonous and prepackaged, the cost of operation to strike out on your own is prohibitive, and the govt has an edict for everything that is only enforced selectively.

The high-trust period of American life is mostly a thing of the immediate post-World War II era and, in reality, lasted maybe a generation. Even as Americans are somewhat more trusting than much of the world, the country has been, for much of its history, low-trust. The difference right now is that while Americans as a collective believe most people are untrustworthy, they insist on living as though we live in a high-trust society. It’s yet another contradiction that’s unsustainable. Just as our empathy is being brutally exploited, our desire to trust others is also putting us in danger.

Post-civil war, Americans will never again delude themselves into thinking we’re a high-trust society. We’ll begin living more in accordance with reality; it’ll become necessary to survive. There will still be those who judge others for choosing to prioritize their personal safety over the “rights” of social transgressors and the observance of current-day norms. But these voices will not only fall upon deaf ears, they’ll find themselves increasingly ostracized. They won’t change overnight, but over the generation following the end of conflict (or during, depending on how long it goes), a new set of social values will emerge.

This means criminality will be taken seriously once again; anarcho-tyranny will no longer be a thing, regardless of how corrupt and ineffective the state ends up becoming. Even as crime will be more prevalent, just as prevalent will be resistance. Petty thievery will be punished mercilessly by those willing to fight back. Smash-and-grabbers will have their bones broken. Pranksters and other social terrorists will suffer serious injuries, maybe even death.

If you think I’m indulging in a blood lust, remember: violence undergirds every social interaction. There are far too many living among us already for whom violence is the primary mode of social interaction. Currently, the use of violence in daily life is a one-way street, dominated by the criminal and predatorial element of society alongside the state, while society is expected to stand pliantly by, keep it moving, and ignore obvious problems all around us. If we’re to survive, at some point, violence has to enter the picture once again. There’s no other option. Civilization is unraveled through violence, but it’s also maintained by it.

At the very least, we won’t need to live like this any longer: pretend like we live in a civil society while the dregs have their way with impunity:

Source

What Does The End - And Beyond - Look Like To You?

Before closing out, an update on the incident from Mannheim, Germany:

Source

It calls to mind the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog. Except I have far more sympathy for the frog than I do for the police officer. The frog was trying to help; the officer was trying to enforce. The frog has no capacity to harm; the officer’s whole purpose is to exercise violence on behalf of state and society. The frog only error was to assume the scorpion would act in its self-interest’ the officer’s error wasn’t just that he assumed the migrant wouldn’t dare attack him, but also allowed the state-indoctrinated prejudice against Germans to overwhelm common sense.

At some point, “following orders” and “just doing our jobs” ceases to have any meaning. It’s what the Nazis used as an excuse when held accountable for their atrocities.

What are your thoughts on anything discussed here? Are we really reaching a breaking point? Or is there still a long night ahead of us? What’s the worst you see happening? What comes the day after? What sort of society will our children and grandchildren live in? What’ll it take to restore order once again?

Let’s chat.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!