The Chronology of Collapse (- X)

Xerxes

Introduction

To first resist this current age of darkness, we must first understand it. The Kali Yuga (age of darkness) in this particular context is the twisted belief that bloodlines of true, honourable, Indo-European aristocracy (Ie, the Brahmin caste, house of Tudor and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha etc) are on equal footing with the bloodlines of lower bloods – the immigrant (regardless of to or from the West), the untouchable and the criminal . This world has gone mad, but its cause is rampant materialism being idolised while sacrificing genes, class and faith on the alter of history. We no longer look at a man by his pedigree, but by the wealth he owns. We do not judge a man by his faith in warfare, but instead we focus on his faith in money. In todays society, a man cloaked in gold is inherently perceived than a man cloaked in the blood of the enemy.

It is well known that self-control is the ultimate path to a strong society such as the ‘hard times create strong men’ and ‘strong men create good times’ quotes. But, some of you may ask and say well, we had capitalism a hundred years ago and society had been better since. Yet, our society has been going downhill since the fifteenth century. Well, in this essay, will be an initial explanation into why we are where we are and what mistakes we made so we do not repeat them for the new society.

The Fall of Unity

The first significant act of abandonment of self-control to greed and power was the protestant reformation, such as writing down the bible in the populaces respective language instead of the Vatican’s primary tongue of Latin. Sounds good right? Why shouldn’t we advocate for this? Well, you inquisitive folk, it gives people the word of God and thus the ability to twist it for themselves. You could argue that the Vatican twisted the word of God for their own ends. Ok, yes, I can see how that sounds bad, but you could also argue their power kept European peoples in check. This united goal of an institution of continental size (and around this time possibly extra continental) could be understood as a justified reason for a bit harsher and dominant than the normal person would like. But remember, the church went through innumerable wars, then rebuilding and re education of the recently conquered land to bring everyone in line with each other. They have everything to lose.

However, what did Luther do? He made mere men, most being peasants or mercantile class decide the fate of God for themselves instead of the organisation that have given them (and quite possible several generations before them) a safe, happy and purpose filled lifestyle. When you give Gods words to the uninitiated mind (such as the protestant populaces soon after) its fairly foreseeable the chaos caused. This is the equivalent of giving the layman prestige art pieces and the one who can forge the idea that people are most attracted to will have the biggest number of followers instead of listening to the art professions. Seems crazy right? Well, in these simple terms, yes. However, it is obviously greyer than this and I can agree the church did do some bad things and that they, as an institution aren’t martyrs, however, that does not warrant the hell that was about to follow.

The way the church has been constructed means that more often than not it will protect its people. We can see this as it is an elective monarchy and a religious entity. It needs to be good for the people or they would simply rebel as we have seen in countless royalist death phases, and it must perform acts of extreme awe-inspiring faith to inspire others, bolstering the believers or converting the infidel. Great care was taken to keep the population as happy and purpose filled as possible – I mean the cathedrals, art and choir music created by the Vatican is simply second to none and you would be lying if an aesthetic of that magnitude did not somewhat uplift your spirits at least by a tad when you came into contact with any of those three.

I suppose it could be linked to the perfectly described quote by esoteric thinker Julius Evola: “The inferior never lives a fuller life than when he feels his existence is subsumed in a greater order endowed with a centre; then he feels like a man standing before leaders of men, and experiences the pride of serving as a free man in his proper station”. This encapsulates the idea of the church beautifully as God is indeed the highest and most honourable goal imaginable and to understand your place in the world, no matter how small, can truly ignite zealotry and hope in the folk with the smallest or worst tasks imaginable.

This idea of everyone knowing their place was soon shattered as first shown by Oliver Cromwell killing King Charles I in early 1649. This lead to a direct insult of the hierarchical ideology which held Europe together. For a thousand years this feudal system has propped up some sort of stability and then to have someone of lower spiritual rank kill Gods representative on Earth and not being struck down by the Lords wrath really bolstered the idea of that the Catholic church are obsessed with power which made more oppose it and become even more hostile towards the Vatican. Whether you believe in the great chain of being or not (I’m a believer just in case you were curious) you cannot deny the impact of Cromwell’s actions on the future of the continent.

The dichotomy was now in place. From Britain’s (and protestant Europe’s) side there was a brilliant man who punished the weak and unworthy King and thus explaining the lack of divine malicious intervention towards Cromwell and who sought to free Britain from the chains of the church. From the Catholic side, there was an arrogant terrorist who butchered the highest religious, military, cultural and powerful member in office in the whole nation and then having the audacity to throw away over a millennium of tradition to take top spot with no regard for the rest of Europe. With both of these viewpoints seeming understandable from whatever side you hold, you can see why there was much more tension in Europe after this point.

The Fall of Hierarchy

Europe has been cut in half essentially and yet this is only the beginning of the end of the west. The next fall into chaos was in 1789. We all know the carnage that was there. After having a proxy war over American colonisation with Britain a few years before, Louis XVI was economically forced to tax his own people to death to save the countries economy. Obviously, the people naturally opposed this and so a rebellion would and did happen, and parlement (the French governmental council at the time) would bring in reforms to try and halt the revolution. The King agreed but then later on just outright shutdown the whole assembly due to it restricting his power. This then caused the whole exiled parliament to rise up in armed revolution and eventually declaring France a republic and killing anyone vaguely royal or whom had any support to it.

We can see that this had all stemmed from the proxy wars between Britain and France. But why had this happened now when France and Britain seemed to have fighting each other in their genes? Well, it is most likely the Church lacked authority in the situation due to the British being protestant and thus France and the UK didn’t have a ‘united father figure’ view in the Vatican. Another example prior to all of this is that during the thirteenth century, King John of England had a serious dispute with the church so much so that it lead to him being excommunicated, however, this lack of support meant that the feudal lords could impose the Magna Carta with the only resistance being the king and a few of his followers which were quite simply useless against the former hammer and swords of the King. With no higher authority such as the church to threaten them, the King lost his absolute right and thus became constitutional, breaking the back of Britain from then on.

Nevertheless, let us return to the French revolution once more and understand the legislation brought in. In the time that Parlement was still active, they had successfully shut down feudalism and destroying peasantry. This was the first fusion of classes since the pagan times for now the lowest classes and the mercantile classes were both free men and were thus on equal footing. However, this could be argued as the first implementation of communism as they, in mid-1792 attacked the imperial palace and killed the King. How is this communist I hear you ask? Well, a King by definition is inherently the most powerful being in the land and is basically the brains of the machine of the country (with the people being cogs). This act of rebellion against the feudal system and ultimately the royalist order implies rather heavily that they did not believe that any man is above them and believed all were equal and should be free men (thus throwing together all the genetics into a disgusting mix of peasant and aristocratic bloodlines in there was no authority). For example, if the genes are mixed between a lower-class family and a family of aristocracy, how can one person claim they are the true heir to a specific long-gone position as half of their genes make them subservient to their other half.

Furthermore, then there is the horrible deciphering of genetic inheritance out of a vacuum. I said half low blood and half high blood just as the basic example. But in realistic terms, it’s never fifty-fifty. Let’s look at the idea that person A’s grandparent 1-3 are peasants but grandparent 4 is a Lord. And thus Person A’s parents grew up in middle class household. Firstly, they would struggle to gain command over the peasants as they would see them being arrogant and above their station, making the peasants more likely to stage a rebellion unless the person is more lenient towards them than a normal, which would undermine the hierarchy structure in all. And secondly, let’s say that this family use their pedigree to claim hereditary ownership of having a Lord in their bloodline over a manor. Now, lets say Person B has all peasant parents and grandparents but every great grandparent was a Duke and they claim ownership to the manor aswell. This begins to beg the philosophical question of what is more important – closeness to aristocracy (ie A only having the grandparent of an aristocrat) or rank of the bloodline (ie B having a Duke in the family). It is already difficult enough to decide between consistently upper-class individuals over whom should rule whom, but this continental class mixing is simply turning the dial to eleven and just detaching the button.

If a person deals with things like this for so long, then it is understandable for those who want a shortcut that it is simply better to not look at class and look at the spirit of a person. That does seem reasonable to a degree, but remember, personality is changeable between generations and even between eras in your life. Thus, in a crisis or the change of the leader, blood will always be thicker than water for certain bloodlines are simply built to be protective or submissive to others.

A personal example is that my family did used to have a large amount of land in central Europe and had a staff size in triple figures. There was never any aggression from either party as both my family as my family knew their duty to lead and protect (be it economically or physically) and the staff backed up their side of the contract to create a mutually beneficial partnership. This lead to a very good relationship over the generations where it was more of a father/son dynamic than simply slaver/master. Why did it work so well? It’s because there wasn’t any clash of loyalties. I hate to say it as it makes me sound rather arrogant, but our family was purely upper class and the staff were purely lower class. As I said in the previous paragraphs, genetic pedigree is truly the best indicator of behaviour we have in the leader/follower dichotomy.

For example, we see that former ‘followers’ whom have become leaders are much more extreme in their behaviours towards their followers. The first extreme is leniency which we have discussed in the last few sections and the other extreme is brutality. Brutality is shown in hundreds of case studies, but we shall look at a few.

The first is the state of Liberia. It was originally colonised by the former African and Caribbean slaves of the US. However, it would be expected that as both the indigenous and former slave folk were both oppressed by the US that they would unite. The opposite was true. The former slaves, many being mixed race, were in fact the most ruthless oppressors towards the indigenous folk. Why? Because they did not wish for them to at the same level as them for a genetic advantage (ie having a society with an ethnocentric goal on them). They indigenous rather obviously would see mixed race folk somewhat closer to themselves than the pure white American and the former slaves (from now on will be called upper Liberians) knew this. The upper Liberians would have to enforce more ruthless means such as total exclusion of all lower Liberians (the indigenous folk) as they knew they had similar genetics goals and thus were more likely to clash.

But these are all extreme measures, right? Well just look at it in today’s society. It almost a universal rule that poorer folk, once getting rich, completely abandon their roots (even including a racial basis) and live the high life with the elite essentially trying their hardest to make their former brothers submit to them by bullying them be it physically, verbally or emotionally whereas someone who has always had their position is less fearful of a coup due to the natural power dynamics of the relationship that both parties subconsciously inherit.

The Fall of Morals

The final event that broke the last chain in our survival was world war one. How does one get influence and the ability to dictate to others? Guns and money of course. If you have money, you buy guns to enforce your influence. If you have guns you enforce a population into giving you money. Well, in the early interwar period whom was the ultimate winner? And who had an unholy number of guns and money? Yep, you’ve guessed it: the USA.

The USA from that point on (even during the great depression) was essentially the monarch of the world. They would beat anyone who would vaguely step out of line and leave them broken and bloodied for decades after. But the USA was the new kid on the block in 1919 but needed a gang to help them bring about the ‘American imperium’ or ‘Pax Americana’ as its sometimes known.

Well, to have a gang, they have to think like you, right? So, you all have the objective to work towards. Well, America had spotted its prey. An entire continent where even the victors were broken. It was an easy target. Thus, the introduction of the American dream infiltrated Europe thus seeing a faster change in anti-aristocratic ideology across Europe than any other time before in history. Yes, in overall terms, even more than the French revolution as there was a counter alliance between Britain and the other royals at that time and also that when napoleon declared himself Emperor of France there was much support for his royal position (thus making his army so ruthless).

What made America so insidious to the heavily structured and well-ordered Europe was its protestant roots. It was able to get a grip over America largely influencing the nation to follow the Quakerised ideology. But what makes Quakerism so dangerous? Well, they believe that God is in us – our ‘inner light’ as they put it and gives the power of God to the individual. Well, that does sound extremely similar to the protestant reformation, doesn’t it? And, ironically, it had the same effect. Society has indeed now split far more aggressively between those who are moral absolutists (non-Quakers) and moral universalists/relativists (Quakers) since America has sunk its claws into the rest of the west and used its protestant ancestors to spread its idea of ‘love thy neighbour’ to the extreme.

We can see Quakerism heavily in the left-wing movements today whether they are theistic or not. Lets say person A has done crime X. The right will say that is completely unacceptable (moral absolutists). But the left will always say ‘that was wrong but looking at characteristic Y he is justified’ and sometimes just saying outright ‘he was fighting for equality’ which is extremely Quaker-esque. So, if you look at the left as a whole it is only using one half of Jesus’ teachings – ‘treat others how you want to be treated’ and ‘As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you’. These are understandably good quotes from the Son of God, however, he did say many more things to have the perfect mixture between self-preservation and love. If Islamic State quote only the war half of the Koran and ignore the other half, they should, and rightfully are labelled extremist but if you ignore half of the Son of God’s words for some deranged destructive utopia, then why shouldn’t the word extremists be used? These are fanatics and like all unbalanced fanatics, they must be purged from the political system.

The most monstrous idea is that there is no Jewish, Israeli or Illuminati conspiracy that ended Christianity, but it was itself. You could argue the groups above could have the power now, but it should be accepted Christian extremists ate Christianity from the inside out like a cancer.

The idea of Christianity was originally about a balance between the iron fist and the open hand. When I said Christian extremist, many of you imagined an army clad in black wielding AK47’s around and planting a flag on conquered land in the name of Christ, but extreme, by its dictionary definition is: the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism. It never mentions violence which does fit with these Quaker extremists. Quakers in fact help strive for equality for many groups such as multi-racial, cultural and sexual without understanding the long-term problems. They are in fact so zealous in their idea that God is in every one of us and thus its unholy to treat anyone better or worse that these, in their end game would turn America into a pseudo-anarchist state.

But what links all of this together? Why does this chronology of collapse seem to make sense? Why is the west getting more and more messed up? Well, if you read over every event you have seen, every time chaos emerges is when a tradition is given up in place for progress. Many on the alternative right in fact describe society as a cup and each breaking of tradition is a chink in the cup – unfixable once it happens and shall only spread more. As progress occurs the glass starts to look different from the outside and also much internally weaker. Eventually, with enough breaks, society will shatter into a nothing. The quote ‘death by a thousand cuts’ is true at this point and we are at cut 999.