How can a totalitarian state be erected in a society that is individualist and freedom loving? Before answering this question let us look closely at the 2 types of societies that dot our planet: Collectivist and individualist. Collectivist societies are generally low in individualism, ethics, and trust. As Kevin MacDonald pointed out, since individuals in collectivist cultures rely on their collective identities for sustenance and survival, the needs of the group supersede the needs of the individual. As such their ethics are centred around what is good for their tribe/group and not mankind. Collectivist cultures stress conformity as that is the most effective way of maintaining group harmony. Their etiquette protocols similarly are concerned with group harmony as opposed to inculcating a genuine goodwill towards their fellow man.
The logical outcome of this arrangement is that etiquette becomes ritualized but not internalized, and this is evident in the low trust and low morality cultures of India and China. This is also possibly why the Indians and Chinese (despite their elaborate etiquette protocols) rarely smile at strangers. Collectivist societies suppress freewill through conformity and nowhere is this more evident than in India, where historically an individual’s talents and aspirations were ground to dust upon the awesome machinery of caste to which society was irrevocably chained. Islam (which originated in a tribal culture) stresses conformity (and by extension group harmony) via rituals that bind the community together (prayers, pilgrimages, purity rituals ect).
Collectivist cultures are dismissive of privacy and this is readily apparent in the housing arrangements of Asians. Asian (South and East) apartments are overcrowded and their living conditions would make even the most feminized and PC whites wince inwardly. This is also true of cases where the Asian tenants earn enough to afford better living arrangements. In his article “Failings of the Indian justice system” veteran journalist Aakar Patel writes:
“One of the cruel things about being in an Indian jail is the lack of privacy. There is always someone around you. Not just the police but other prisoners (one report said Ram Singh shared the cell with three people). Solitary confinement here doesn’t mean what it does in the West. There are also closed circuit cameras observing inmates, especially those in solitary confinement.”
This isn’t entirely cruel as most South Asians simply can’t fathom privacy, which is a by-product of an individualist culture. A former (Pakistani) roommate once told me that privacy wasn’t all that important; unless when one wished to masturbate. However, the lack of privacy also serves another function: it allows individuals to constantly monitor each other to ensure conformity to protocol. Since collectivist societies live under a constant state of self imposed surveillance, these cultures seem to possess an innate tolerance for totalitarianism which is often reflected in their polity. India might outwardly appear to be an exception, but upon close examination it isn’t so as traditional hierarchical structures constantly impede democracy. To paraphrase Jeffrey Archer: The Indian can think in English, but cannot think like the English.
Individualist cultures by contrast (and a mighty contrast it is) de-emphasize extended kin relationships thus embodying a more universal moral outlook. However, Western culture’s love of individual autonomy serves as the perfect safeguard against totalitarianism. The latter cannot flourish in a society which empowers individuals and which yields limited power to government by design. Yet recent trends in NSA surveillance seem to portend a disturbing shift in the currents. Why is the reaction to NSA surveillance so lukewarm in the land of the free? I can think of various factors worth examining:
- Empowering women: Feminism’s ultimate totalitarian agenda has been skillfully camouflaged under the veneer of social justice. By robbing men of their role as protectors, feminists have shifted women’s need for security away from the family and onto the state. Men define autonomy as freedom from the state whereas feminists demand a larger and more intrusive state that specifically caters to women’s interests (affirmative action for women, bogus family laws ect). It isn’t surprising that Gender feminism was funded and molded by plutocratic elites like the Fords and Rockefellers. It is impossible to challenge the State when half the population chooses to suckle on the breast of the nanny state. Feminism has slain the tricoteuse and erected upon her corpse the solipsistic and culture wrecking career woman.
- Consumerism: Consumerism assaults individualism by injecting small but lethal doses of homogeneity into society. As stated above, individualism is the applicative mechanism of freedom and eroding it would render us incapable of resisting totalitarianism. No longer are we grouped by who we are and what we believe in, but rather by what we consume and in what quantities. How did it come to this? Perhaps because we have no other identity to cling to as our liberal overlords have outlawed any feelings of ethnic pride (unless one is non-white) and pride in society’s Protestant heritage. This brings us to our next point.
- Liberals are the true enemies of diversity, real diversity. The left champions ideologies like Communism and feminism that are internationalist in scope and which cruelly uproot individuals from their heritage while assigning them a one size fits all narrative (”class struggle” for communism and “Patriarchy” for feminism). Our corrupt culture promotes miscegenation and liberal values as the norm, which will in time lead to a bland society where everyone is beige and espouses liberal PC values. No diversity. In most modern sitcoms the observant viewer will notice that the characters are basically alike; their personalities may vary in temperament and idiosyncrasies, but they are all essentially liberal cultural orphans. People that moan about the dearth of ethnic diversity in shows like Friends and How I met your mother are clearly missing the point. The real tragedy lies in the dearth of ideological diversity among the show’s protagonists. That is the basis of true diversity.
- Social media: And lastly, nothing conditions us to accommodate surveillance like social media. While corporate vetting conditions us to accommodate vertical surveillance (top to bottom), social media serves another insidious purpose: it conditions us to tolerate horizontal surveillance; ie people keeping an eye on each other. Like the collectivist societies sketched out above, social media is the self imposed surveillance that encourages self censorship and conformity to liberal PC trends. Case in point, neither BAG nor I have Facebook or Twitter accounts as we are forced to keep our identities anonymous given that we refuse to conform.
An effective surveillance apparatus has 2 features:
1) It is omnipresent
2) It ensures that people realize they are being observed without knowing exactly how and when
Some of our readers might think that this article reeks of paranoia but we must remember that throughout history, totalitarianism has been the norm. The freedom that we take for granted today is unprecedented and this freedom is not free. Our elites use a carrot stick approach to induct us into cultural Marxism. Those that conform are showered with platitudes like “tolerant” and “progressive” whereas those that resist are labelled “bigots” and “racists.” We mustn’t allow these labels to deter us in our daily crusade. I certainly don’t and I’ve been called a racist many times by friends and acquaintances. Whites must not trade in their birth right for a bowl of pottage offered to them by their elites.