Paradise Lost

What could have been and what might yet be.

Let us envision what a realistic “Paradise on Earth” would be like, from a rightist perspective –not some unrealistic “lions lay down with lambs” religious-leftist drivel, but a sustainable nationalist-oriented scenario that would not only ensure White existence but reasonably peaceful co-existence between peoples, and a sustainable high standard of living in which humanity can progress to a higher destiny.

We can envision nation states – that may or may not be part of a greater Confederation, Union, or Imperium – that are racially, and in many cases ethnically, homogeneous, and culturally homogeneous as well.  These states have as their raison d’etre the well-being of their citizens, in both the proximate (material, etc.) and ultimate (genetic) meanings of the term.  The states are at peace with each other, although of course competition and struggle, as normal and desirable part of upward-striving life, are part of the picture. There are no (mass) migration flows between states; each people are demographically secure in their territory. Within the states, of course there also is competition and struggle, but this is a striving toward accomplishment, fame, greatness, discovery – all of which ultimately an improve life for all – rather than a grasping, dog-eat-dog, Social Darwinian struggle where some of an ethny enrich themselves at the expense of the others, thus destroying the organic solidarity of the group.  There is full employment, or, if technology has made many types of human work superfluous, a distributist system allows for all citizens to partake of society’s collective goods, as long as the citizens make some sort of substantive contribution to their own self-development and/or the well-being of the community, and are not underman parasites (see below). Science and technics advance, as does the production of cultural artifacts of value, resulting in a good and improving standard of living for all.  This application of science, combined with a reasonable and stable level of human population allows for this society and its standard of living to be stable over time. This realistic paradise would promote the eugenic uplifting of man as well as the moral uplifting akin to the Legionary New man.

What has prevented this from occurring?  What prevents a modified, less optimal, but still good version of this scenario – let’s say with current human population but with further growth controlled – from being implemented? Human behavior is at fault. I agree with writers, fiction and non-fiction, who have asserted that humans could make the Earth into a de facto (realistic) paradise, if they really wanted to.  Obviously, they do not want to, or cannot do so because they have limitations that really prevent them from making the necessary sacrifices even if they did want to create an earthly paradise – they simply don’t want it enough. This resistance comes from the inherent characteristics of the lower and higher types.

From below, we see the Bioleninist resentment of the inferiors for their betters.  Enforced egalitarianism that goes against the true hierarchy of nature results in hell, not heaven, as all attempts by the Left to create their “paradises” create horrific dystopias. The lower types will not accept the consequences of their inherent inferiority, but will attack the upper group – even if co-ethnics – to grab what they, the lower group, could not achieve on their own merits. A utopian society would either have to exert draconian control over the lower elements – which would introduce dystopian elements into the society – or eliminate the lower element via expulsion, extermination, or eugenic interventions (including sterilization).  Allowing lower types to exist and proliferate would make any sort of utopian society untenable, even if they were peaceful they would lower standards, consume resources, and fill up niche space, crowning out superior stock.  But even that is unrealistically optimistic because the lower elements are not peaceful; the underclass will always be a violently unstable element and the revolt of the underman always a dangerous possibility, particularly with leadership from psychopathic elements of the upper classes.

From above, we see struggle for dominance between higher types, with some making common cause with the lesser types to attack the competition among higher types (the White Left/John Lindsay strategy). We observe the primacy of dark triad-dominant personalities in leadership positions and the dominant individuals of the higher types work for the own private benefit, even at the expense of nation and people.  Look at billionaires, who have more than enough money to live comfortably for a hundred lifetimes, who continuously grasp for more and more money, who engage in rent-seeking behavior to change the direction of society to the detriment of the masses and to the selfish benefit of the rich.  We cannot have such types of people in positions of power and authority and build the type of society that I describe above. Grasping, psychopathically ambitious members of the upper class are in fact more dangerous than anyone from the lower ranks and the grim battle for supremacy has always been an element of societal strife that has inhibited human progress.  The human propensity for self-destructive irrationality – from both the high and low – also throws a monkey wrench into utopian schemes. On the other hand, excessive hyper-rationality can drain the vigor from a people and their society, leading to a Last Man mentality that would slowly destroy Utopia through stagnation and decay.

In his book Irrational Man, William Barrett comments on the book Notes from Underground, by Dostoevsky. Thus: 

In a rational utopia, he cries, a man might die of boredom, or out of the violent need to escape this boredom start sticking pins in his neighbor – for no reason at all, just to assert his freedom.  If science could comprehend all phenomena so that eventually in a thoroughly rational society human beings became as predictable as cogs in a machine, then man, driven by the need to know and assert his freedom, would rise up and smash the machine.

Now, that sort of rational, boring utopia is something befitting Nietzsche’s Last Man, not the sort of Faustian overcoming Men of the West would want in their ideal society, but, nevertheless, the more fundamental point should be clear – there will always be malcontents, even in paradise, or, more relevant for the thesis of my post, on the road to paradise, and in sufficient numbers and/or sufficient power and influence, they could wreck the project of building the sort of society described above. And then there is, of course, the criminal element, certainly well represented in the lower elements who wish to take what is not theirs and what they cannot produce, earn, and obtain through legal means, but also criminal elements among the upper levels of society, which can be more dangerous.  And then, as we know, theft can be done “legally” through the political system, via various egalitarian schemes of distribution.  The same principles in fact can characterize entire nations (in every sense of that word) as certain peoples grasp for power or material resources and in so doing upset the international order (in an inappropriate manner; in some cases such grasping may be justified).

Attempts to correct some of these problems may backfire. A strict crackdown on crime and various anti-social behaviors can select for Last Man traits and the resulting genetic pacification would be detrimental for societal vigor. Some outlet for the aggressive behaviors of man must be found that are not harmful and, more optimally, beneficial. One can think of other examples where attempts to correct what is perceived to be negative behavior in the end creates something worse.

The bottom-line is that Paradise has been lost because of human behavior and in some cases the problem behaviors cannot be corrected without making things worse.  It may be that Utopia can be strived toward but never achieved because of the issues discussed here and the balancing out required to preserve a balance of behavior. One can remember that Star Trek episode where a transporter accident split Kirk between “good” and “evil” doubles and the “good” twin was shown to be weak and indecisive, lacking the strength to command found in the evil half (a view that fits well with Nietzsche’s call for men to be better and more evil). There should be some minimum we must demand – universal nationalism and racial homogeneity, human progress including science and technics, a proper balance of rationality and healthy irrational instincts, and progress toward improvement.  The “bad” – as opposed to the “evil” – should be suppressed as is practically possible without suppressing the “evil” within us that provides strength and vigor. Competition is good, striving is good, but destructive selfish grasping is not.  

We can walk the road toward Paradise and while we may never reach Utopia – even that limited Utopia described at the beginning of this essay – because of our limitations (and that may be a good thing, because – then what?), we should reach as far as we can without losing what it means to be truly human.