HBD State III: Purpose

One of the things that makes George Orwell such a frustrating read is that he’s the kind of comically naive Socialist that only the high-Victorian* English public school system could’ve produced.  He really did seem to think that his fellow countrymen would go back to living in a poor, unimportant, squalid little island on the edge of Europe, if only they knew how bad their lifestyle made things for the poor of Peshawar.

He was wrong about that, but he was right about the second pillar of the educated-twit Socialist worldview: That industrial technique had advanced to the point that, by 1920 or so, everyone everywhere really could have all the basics provided for him.  The problem with Socialism isn’t that it can’t produce the goods — even so crack-brained a regime as Lenin’s managed to get the rations delivered more often than not, most everywhere.  It’s that man does not live by bread alone.  There is simply more to human happiness than food, shoes, and indoor plumbing.

That’s why all collectivist states are mouth-frothingly militaristic.  Jingoism is a feature, not a bug, of both communism and fascism, because both must replace any of life’s other possible purposes with worship of the State. Kim’s North Korea is a perfect example.  Fat Boy could decommission 90% of his army tomorrow, and nobody outside North Korea would care.  The South isn’t going to invade — there’s no SJW like an Asian SJW (if you’ve never had the pleasure of meeting one, thank your lucky stars**), and if Kim did decide to invade the South, pretty much every college-educated kid in Seoul would welcome him with open arms.  The Chinese are the regime’s main props; they certainly wouldn’t care if the Norks demilitarized.  The American Left would care, but only because Trump would brag about it on Twitter, which means that a rogue state tossing its nukes into the sea must be bad bad bad, but that’s beside the point.  But if Kim sent the army home, he and his cronies wouldn’t last a day — the militarization of every aspect of Nork life is the only thing propping them up.

An HBD-aware state would have to do something similar.  We’d need an external enemy on which to focus our national will.  (Turns out Orwell was right about that, too — Oceania will never beat Eastasia, because it can’t beat Eastasia.  If it did, the entire system would collapse).  I’ve suggested a revamped mission civilisatrice, but since that seems to get people worked up, let’s say it’s China doing it.  They’re out there taking up the Yellow Man’s Burden in Africa even as we speak.  Will it work for them?  I dunno, but I know this — if they were smart, they’d start relaxing their persecution of journalists… abroad.  The way to keep martyr types and other such gossipy pests from ruining your society is to turn them loose on somebody else’s.  Let them run around the colonies, reporting abuses.  It’ll keep everyone much, much happier…



*Orwell was born in 1903, which I’m aware technically makes him an Edwardian, not a high-Victorian, but for our purposes it’s the same thing.  Just as Philip Larkin said sexual intercourse began in 1963, so most historians date the end of the 19th century to 1914.
**The Chinese term for Western SJW is baizuo, which is a lovely word we need to put into regular use (yay multiculturalism!!).  And, of course, our baizuo call insufficiently #Woke Asian-Americans “bananas” — yellow on the outside, white on the inside.  Anyone who speaks an East Asian language among the 14 Readers?  I’d love to know what e.g. Singapore Chinese call their own SJWs.
Loading Likes...

2 thoughts on “HBD State III: Purpose

  1. Pickle Rick

    Collectivist states are more militant than militarist, with the exception of Mustache Guy’s regime. The Soviets learned that you cannot have a functional military with commissars in 1941, which we will eventually learn as well, to our great sorrow, when we finally provoke a war with someone besides 4th rate tribal savages. For all the bluster and saber rattling of the parades in Red Square or Pyongyang, they haven’t invaded anyone since 1950 and 1979. The Chinese? 1950 as well. Know why? Because unlike us, war, to them, meant MILLIONS dead. And both the Soviets and the ChiComs knew the lessons of the Czar in 1917 and Chaing in 1945, and how eventually, people will reach a breaking point.

    Our own social justice militants have determined that their end game will be civil war, probably ignited when the old Ginsburg woman dies, which will be sooner than later.

  2. rwc1963

    “An HBD-aware state would have to do something similar. We’d need an external enemy on which to focus our national will.”

    That would be a recapitulation of our current state of affair which has been a utter disaster for the U.S. economically and militarily.

    Focus on a outward enemy just allows the ruling class and it’s associates to rape the populace while it’s attention is elsewhere. It’s the old shell game con writ large. Most countries if they have a stable society and not run by a idiot ruling class and globalist loving captains of industry don’t need to set up foreign enemies.

    The only time when you go looking for a foreign enemy is when the social dynamics at home are so f**ked up you really need to distract the people so they don’t eat the ruling class or when there is a monied class who wants to loot other countries in what amounts to bank robbery on a national scale like the Roman patricians of the late Republic did to Greece and the ME.

Comments are closed.