Archive

Posts Tagged ‘nationalism’

Some Thoughts on the Best Way to Destroy Pathological Ideologies: 2

July 21, 2018 11 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made a point that two of most widespread and noxious ideologies of 20th century (race-based colonialism and nationalism) became functionally extinct in Europe largely because most of their “footsoldiers” died in a series of armed conflicts during first half of that century. To put it more bluntly- tens of millions of mediocre white (and Japanese) men, who would have otherwise been staunch supporters and defenders of both ideologies, got killed or physically and mentally fucked up by wars between 1914 and 1945.

You might also recall that I said something about why the mindset of those killed, maimed or mentally scarred had a large influence on the course of global history after 1945. So what was the mindset and worldview of these mediocre white men who became functionally extinct in Europe after 1945? A good place to start is the world in which they grew up. To make a long story short, the vast majority of these mediocre and reactionary men came from either an agricultural or working class background. This does not mean that they were all retarded.. just that they came from an environment where thinking objectively was not encouraged.

But that, by itself, is not enough to understand the unusually high prevalence of reactionary CONservatism among this group. For that, one has to first appreciate how a series of large socio-economic changes in late 19th century Europe affected an already CONservative rural agricultural class. Large-scale industrialization of Europe, contrary to what some of you might believe, did not start till 1860s. Even more importantly, certain ideas such as standardized compulsory basic schooling and nationalism did not become a big thing till the 1880s. You will see why those two things matter, later in the post.

Those dates are, however, important because the era between 1850 and 1900 was the true peak of European colonialism. After 1900, differences in relative abilities between colonizers and colonized started decreasing to the point where Europeans had to flee from even their last African colonies by mid-1960s. To put it another way, it was possible for a large number of the mediocre white men born between.. say.. 1850 and 1900 to actually believe that they were the “chosen people”. These simpletons also believed that staunchly supporting and serving their hyper-greedy national elite (who were happy to indulge racism of lower classes) was a winning strategy.

And for a few decades, it all seemed to work. But the world around does not stand still, and some now powerful countries which did not have large colonial possessions started resenting others which had entered the colonialism game many decades before them. The older models of governance in many of these countries were also not scaling well to the era of industrialization and resultant socio-economic changes. Development of weapon and logistics-related technology since the last large intra-European wars was, however, the biggest wild card.

While every large European power at that time was arming and rearming itself to the teeth, they all pretended that long drawn out wars were not feasible. Luckily, for the rest of humanity, it was feasible and all major powers experienced millions of ‘untimely’ deaths among men of prime working age and many millions more were made invalid for life. And we have not even started talking about associated civilian deaths and all those millions who died during 1918-1919 because of the great influenza pandemic that followed WW1.

While most belligerent countries lost between 2-5% of their population due to WW1, those losses was heavily concentrated among men of ages between 18-35. I have seen some studies which show that, in some countries like France and Germany, almost 50% of men in that age group were either dead or disabled by early 1919. Entire villages and towns in UK lost most of their young men, and entire cohorts of men who went to public school and oxbridge in UK were no longer alive by end of WW1. And we have not even touched on the massive demographic effects of the Russian civil war between 1917-1922.

Some might see it as a tragedy.. I prefer to see the partial extinction of a whole category of reactionary and CONservative minded men in and immediately after WW1 in a more positive light. Let us face it.. WW1 did remove a ton of mediocre and reactionary men who happened to be big supporters and cheerleaders of race-based colonialism from the reproductive pool. The aftermath of WW1 also exposed how full of shit the elites of those countries were. To make a long story short, the government of most countries involved in WW1 went to considerable lengths to avoid paying proper pensions and compensation to relatives of the dead and disabled.

The point I am trying to make is that WW1 resulted in death of a large percentage of most ardent supporters of race-based colonialism and disillusioned others who escaped with just a permanent disability or poverty. Did I mention that nationalism boosted by then new universal primary education was the ‘opium’ of these masses. While a reduction in support of race-based colonialism is not immediately obvious, the number of men who entered colonial services of European countries (or supported politicians who championed the ‘old ways’) took a terminal dive after WW1. Of course, it would take WW2 to finish the all that good work started by WW1.

In the next post of this series, I will talk about how WW2 put the proverbial headstone on grave of race-based colonialism and destroyed public support for militant nationalism and associated ideologies.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on the Best Way to Destroy Pathological Ideologies: 1

July 15, 2018 32 comments

While I considered writing a short click-baity post about the latest misadventures of Elon Musk or something about the silliness of establishment’s latest bout of hyperventilation about Trump, Putin and Russia, I thought it would be better to complete something I have meaning to post for sometime. This post, is the first in a series, of what it actually takes to destroy a pathological ideology so thoroughly that it can never be resurrected. To be clear, I am not suggesting a course of action- just point out the obvious based on a historical analysis.

Some of the ideas put forth in this post, and series, have part of an older series (link 1, link 2). I have also written a few standalone posts (link 3, link 4, link 5) which touch on some concepts I am going to discuss in some detail. In case you are wondering, the gist of all those linked older posts is that willing and enthusiastic followers of a malicious ideology are the true agents of evil perpetrated by that ideology. Let me remind you that there is little to no evidence that most so-called tyrants and ideologues personally killed even a few people. Instead, every single death attributed to them was due to their followers doing the actually dirty work for them.

With that in mind, let us talk about factors responsible for extinction of two major and particularly noxious ideologies that were once widespread in the 20th century. The first ideology is best described as race-based white colonialism of non-white countries (especially in Asia and Africa). The second is militant and race-based nationalism of the type which dominated Germany and Japan during the 1930-1945 time-span. Most people living in countries where these ideologies were once dominant will today, at least in public, take great effort to disavow them. However, their ancestors once were ardent supporters of, and proud foot-soldiers for, these ideologies.

So.. how did we get from a world where people in the west were vocal and open about their “god-given right” to rob, abuse and murder non-whites to one where even an attempt to praise colonialism can get you fired from your job. How did we get from a world where ‘the west’ could occupy any non-white country it chose to one where a small Asian country like Vietnam could beat both France and USA (after WW2) and haunt their national psyches. Why was post-WW2 decolonization of the African continent so rapid? Why are people in Germany and Japan today so unwilling to praise anything or anybody connected to the period between 1930 and 1945?

The very brief, and polite answer, to those questions is that a number of “occurrences” in the first half of 20th century greatly reduced the number of vectors for ideologies such as race-based colonialism and militant nationalism. The long-form answer starts with acknowledging that many common people, in countries where those ideologies were once dominant, were willing and highly enthusiastic supporters of those ideologies. For example.. a lot of people (especially young men of limited means) in countries such as UK and France once were true believers in race-based colonialism. Similarly, many in 1930-1945 era Germany and Japan were enthusiastic believers in the noxious militant nationalistic ideologies which they came to repudiate- after 1945.

To understand what I am talking about, let us compare the noxious ideologies of past to similar ones prevalent in present-day USA. As the more perceptive of you might have noticed, there is no shortage of american idiots of a reactionary mindset and mediocre cognitive capabilities who will support tons of stupid and dangerous things which do not benefit them such as involvement endless wars in foreign countries, support for outrageous levels of military spending, opposition to public spending on healthcare because if might benefit the “coloreds” etc. To be fair- people who think like this are now a minority, but a significant minority nonetheless.

And this brings us to the obvious question- why are European and Japanese equivalents of these CONservative idiots far less numerous? The simple answer is that many of them died in WW1, inter-war conflicts and WW2. The ones who survived those “occurrences” were seen by the rest of their society as losers who should not be emulated. The more complex version of this story is that WW1, inter-war conflicts in Europe and WW2 resulted in disproportional deaths of young white men of reactionary mindset and mediocre cognitive ability regardless of whether the belligerent nations recruited for their armed forces through patriotism or conscription.

The sheer number of deaths and disabilities due to those wars, Influenza pandemic of 1918 and all those Nazis who died in Russian prison camps after WW2 removed tens of millions of useful idiots who would have otherwise helped further causes such as race-based colonialism and militant nationalism. The low number of deaths due to those wars in USA (because it joined both almost 3 years after had started) is, sadly, why reactionary CONservative thinking persists in USA. Large scale excessive deaths among useful reactionary drones is, historically speaking, the only way to effect lasting social change including getting rid of pathological ideologies.

In the next part of this series, I will write in more detail about how demographic changes due to WW1 and WW2 started changing the worldview of people in those countries. More specifically, I will talk about the mindset of those who got killed, maimed or mentally scarred in those wars (and their aftermath) in comparison to those who survived. Will also cast some light on the severity of demographic profile shifts in main belligerent countries after both wars.

What do you think? Comments?