Which group is responsible for the predicament that Western Civilization finds itself

After reading all the posts from many of the members here in the forum, I think it would be a good idea to tie all the loose ends into one megapost and for everyone to ask ourselves which group bears the major responsibility for what is going on with Western Civilization. I say this because everyone has their favorite groups to blame, but I think we need to pinpoint the origin. So I am creating this poll to find out who is the source of the miasma affecting Western Civilization.

Here are the following options:

1. (((The usual suspects)))
2. Women
3. Christianity
4. Insecure and weak Beta and Gamma males posing as alphas
5. The elites (non (((usual suspects)))) who have fallen into decadence
6. Leftists and leftist allies
7. Degenerate alpha males who misuse their gifts
8. Red-pilled men (ourselves) because we have forgotten the lessons of history
   

After thinking about it (and spending so much time reading the posts and thinking back as to what happened from a historical point of view), I think we red-pilled men ourselves are to blame because we sat on our laurels and forgotten what it means to struggle. We became lazy, forgot the lessons of the past and permitted the miasma to infiltrate our societies and feminized us. Yeah, we can argue until the cows come home about the other groups listed above and how they corrupted society. Make no mistake, they definitely deserve blame, but we redpilled men ourselves forgot that we are God's hunters, orderkeepers and maintainers of Western society and now we have work to do to fix the problems at hand. There are many solutions to fix the problem, but every red-pilled man has the capability to be part of the solution.

Quote

Jews, obviously.

Quote

I'd go with decadent elites: women, ((()))s, bugmen, and leftists are just parasites that adapt well to the environment created by the elites.

Quote

Briefly on women.

I've heard a lot that women getting the vote has been a major turning point. Someone will need to point to some hard evidence on this, but all the evidence I have seen suggests that the political leanings of the sexes are very similar. At least if you remover the under 30s.

It's more the case that weak men have teamed up with 'strong' women in an attempt to subvert reality for their own ends. Both of those groups are jealous and angry at both top tier men and women, as they hold most of the social and material capital.

The main problem is leftists of all shapes and colours.

Feminism hurts women as much as it does men. While feminism outright denigrates masculinity the treatment of femininity is subtle, in the life of political correctness. Women know that in mainstream society, expressing your femininity will lead to a ton of bricks coming down on you.

Quote

The Generation that voted in the New deal and then the Boomers. Basically the people responsible for the welfare state. Every problem we have now can be traced back to that.

Quote

It’s not one group solely responsible, but rather, a powerful group facilitating the decline via other complicit groups due to greed/self-interest.

Think of it like a PERT chart (program evaluation review technique) where certain components of a project are required to be completed before the next phase can commence (but some can occur concurrently).

There could also arguably be multiple causes which give rise to a specific effect, creating the right conditions if you will.

For example, moral decline could be linked back to the various stages of feminism (and their right to vote), the advent of women’s birth control, women’s increased presence in the workplace (making them less reliant on men) which has also contributed to destroying the traditional family unit, PC/SJW/gay, lesbian, trans whatever, cultural Marxist elements allowed a platform (social media) to accelerate and normalise degeneracy and also various economic factors which have given rise to such events, broadly speaking.

It would actually be interesting to map this out in a timeline, highlighting certain catalysts.

Quote

If I had to pick a group it would be Jews. But ultimately it is the decline of Christianity in the West that is the problem, regardless of where the blame lies. Jews certainly played a role in this (particularly in the 1960s manufactured cultural revolution, through Hollywood, and with psychiatry and the Frankfurt school) but there are many others who share the blame.

Quote

We gave women the right to vote, and started enacting legislation like social welfare programs.

We shouldn't just say the problem is "women", its that we let women have a voice and a say, and ended up creating idiotic laws that cater to women that turned our society into shit.

Quote

I don't really think we can blame women, after all they are simply like children doing and taking what they have been allowed.

I choose Red pilled men, since we should be the ones driving society. We got blindsided in the 80's I think and have never recovered.

1. Red-pilled men (ourselves) because we have forgotten the lessons of history
2. Insecure and weak Beta and Gamma males posing as alphas
3. The elites (non (((usual suspects)))) who have fallen into decadence
4. Leftists and leftist allies they are virtually the same people as #3 at this point.
5. (((The usual suspects)))
6. Degenerate alpha males who misuse their gifts
7. Christianity
8. Women

Quote

I blame prohibition. Opened the door for the 19th, and such its repeal didn't fix the problem.

Quote

Leftists and their allies. One can only blame the others for so much.

Quote

White westerners no question, both for at best allowing it to happen, and at worse, making it happen.

Quote

Evil propsers when good men do nothing as the saying goes. A combination of Huxley and Orwell but Huxley was the precursor. The boomer generation did not tell the millennials the problems with the world in great numbers did they? We had to find them out ourselves and now we're older we are putting things together.

Too late for that.

The power structure is beyond any one man and you need a movement(army) to topple it. This is the seed where the enjoy the decline crowd grows from but I have a different view, plot your time and observe. I believe they have grown drunk on their own power and status and we are in a time of Political Entropy.

More groups want in and the groups who are in want bigger slices. Only a finite amount of pie to go along. This leads to many problems, many of which we're seeing now.

Quote

The devil himself.

Quote

(05-08-2019 03:20 PM)Deusleveult Wrote:  The devil himself.

Might as well run down the Seven Deadly Sins.

Greed - aka "free market forces" aka corporations and their government lackeys.

For example, feminism is a product of free market agency. By "free market agency" I mean people in market enterprises and those who are influenced by them in government acting - consciously or unconsciously - to maximize market growth and efficiency, aka Adam Smith's "the invisible hand."

"Growth" is the main goal in a market economy. If unchecked, the pursuit of growing profits and wages supersedes all other goals - social, environmental, political.

It makes sense in a market economy where economic growth is the main business and governmental goal to give women fiscal autonomy. Women buy a lot more stuff and are more concerned with bling and fashion for status. Giving them the freedom to earn and spend their own money gives a big lift to economies, like it or not.

Walk around a mall to see the proof of this. At least 75% of the space is given up to things women buy. Women's clothing at least 3/1 men's. Women want more and newer or more prestigious stuff, whether it's houses, cars, appliances, clothes, jewelry.

World Bank, IMF, UN, US, EU all have studies showing the positive effect women's liberation has on raw economic growth, because of demand growth.

A supplemental bonus, at least as far as corporate profit margins go, is the depressive effect on wages women's entry into the labor market has.

Nobody talks about this other than a few leftists who talk about "neoliberal social justice," or "woke capitalism" and a few on the right like Tucker Carlson.

You can add the empowerment of pride, envy, and gluttony to the list of growth-enhancing feminist effects. All of these things spur women to buy more.

Is the feminist movement against "fat shaming" the empowerment of gluttony aka excessive consumption of food?

Lust and wrath are mostly male sins - see the porn industry for the former, weapons and gaming for the latter.

There's not much money to be made off of sloth that I can see. Maybe appliances and services.

Quote

Looking at this problem from a very superficial perspective, as Sp5 has done above, leads to very obtuse, vague and superficial answers. So yeah, it's the fault of "greed", as if greed was not part of the human impulse for the two millennia where European civilization thrived. Or yeah, it's "white people" who are at fault, as if those people weren't white before...

You need to look at the when, how, and why western civilization declined in order to understand the reasons for its ongoing decline, and the agents of this decline, their tools and their motives. Short of doing this, your analysis and understanding will be a superficial one (it's Greed! or "Whites"! or "Leftists"!...).

And as you long as you don't understand this, you will be prone to being manipulated by the forces behind this decline, because those forces have conditioned their victims and deprived them from the rational and spiritual tools they need to fight back.

Quote

I think its a dumb and pointless question to begin with.

Here's the more relevant one.

Who are my enemies?

The great thing about that question is that these days it's really easy to answer.

"All those people who tell me they are."

Quote

(05-09-2019 11:33 AM)911 Wrote:  Looking at this problem from a very superficial perspective, as Sp5 has done above, leads to very obtuse, vague and superficial answers. So yeah, it's the fault of "greed", as if greed was not part of the human impulse for the two millennia where European civilization thrived. Or yeah, it's "white people" who are at fault, as if those people weren't white before...

You need to look at the when, how, and why western civilization declined in order to understand the reasons for its ongoing decline, and the agents of this decline, their tools and their motives. Short of doing this, your analysis and understanding will be a superficial one (it's Greed! or "Whites"! or "Leftists"!...).

And as you long as you don't understand this, you will be prone to being manipulated by the forces behind this decline, because those forces have conditioned their victims and deprived them from the rational and spiritual tools they need to fight back.

It's true in a way, my analyses rely on "superficial" facts. Superficial in the sense of "shit anyone can see" and judge the validity of, rather than claims of underground organizations which make decisions in secret.

The operation of things like greed, lust, gluttony, etc are validated by history. You can look at the fall of the Roman Empire and see elite tax evasion, etc. People don't change, only the means and the systems.

To look at the current moment and see some cataclysmic decline ending the "two millennia where European civilization thrived" is ridiculous. Nations and civilizations have cycles.

The "two millennia where European civilization thrived." Except for Goths sacking Rome, the Huns, Vandals, etc running around fighting aka "The Dark Ages." Warring medieval kingdoms with little or no technological or political innovation beyond Rome for centuries, the Plague, invasions by Muslims with superior organization, the Thirty Years' War between Christian sects, Napoleon, WW I, WW II, etc.

Compared to most of that, we are living in a Golden Age. Shit's going to change, because of global trade, travel, and communications, and many unprecedented new technologies, including AI.

As far as my micro explanation for feminism goes: Anyone can look around, see that women buy a lot more shit. Anyone can look up the numbers and graphs on female labor participation and male wages in the last 50 years.

I prefer explanations like

"feminism became a widespread set of beliefs because women wanted more control of money to buy bling and maximize their hypergamous opportunities, and businesses generally thought this was a good idea for profit reasons. Government supported women and business and validated it."

to

"a cabal of Elders of Zion/Bilderberg Group/Illuminati/Masons/Lizard People make decisions in secret and plot to destroy Western Civilization so they can rule us as slaves, bwah-ha-ha!"

.

Quote

There are smart, experienced people who see a concerted effort by a small group of elites as the explanation for our decline, and there are smart, experienced people who think incompetence and human nature is enough to account for it.

If there is an elite cabal manipulating us, they aren't going to say so or provide the evidence for it, so we are left with speculation, ultimately.

I kind of think both sides are right.

People are greedy and short sighted enough to screw up a good thing, and with technology to speed everything up, it could just be an ignorant disaster.

On the other hand, when I see thing like the rise of tranny rights, and states like North Carolina getting boycotted by everyone for not letting men into women's bathrooms, or trannies suddenly competing in female sports, even in high schools, presented as a fait accompli, it's hard not to think there is a hidden, motivated, well funded, politically connected group manipulating things.





I lean towards the idea of the Atlanticists as put forth in Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope," running things in the background, or at least influencing things with a long view. I also think that the heads of the world powers and businesses are like any monopoly, pooling their resources and strategizing for mutual gain, with people like the Jewish influence groups, the feminists, and all that simply allowed to do their thing as long as it aligns for the most part with the goals of the elites.

A lot of the writing and videos of Jay Dyer on these subjects make sense to me, though I don' t necessarily think it is all coherent or as planned as it has been described.

The spiritual angle can't be dismissed either, and if you believe in spiritual forces for good or evil, it might well be malevolent spiritual entities influencing people in power, letting them think they are the smart ones pursuing their own ends. This could also explain the seemingly coordinated changes that appear to be cropping up in society.

Come on 911, let's hear your summarized theory. No need to trash Sp5. This is an interesting discussion.

Quote

Good post DBG, I'll gladly oblige later this weekend, I've got some company tonight...

In a quick nutshell though, a lot of the problem here and difference in perception is that younger guys tend to look at the way things are as a result of natural forces, ie feminism is a normal state because women are naturally kind of bitchy, or Blacks naturally have feral r-selected tendencies and so forth, because that's the world they grew up in, and the narrative they've been exposed to in mass media.

The other issue is that the conditioning is very good in the West, particularly in high-trust northern European/N. American cultures, to the point where most people cannot wrap their heads around the notion of oligarchs driving social forces through the banking system, the MSM and most "independent" media, the political system, academia, foundations, the scientific establishment, all of which they own or control.

The modern science of persuasion and social engineering is now over a century old, they know how to push our buttons and have narrowly framed the masses into small Overton windows.

You can look at examples in detail and show all this in motion, for instance with the unleashing and development of feminism, or the 1960s Boomer zombification, I could lay out this process in detail with solid proofs later on.

Quote

(05-10-2019 01:02 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  There are smart, experienced people who see a concerted effort by a small group of elites as the explanation for our decline, and there are smart, experienced people who think incompetence and human nature is enough to account for it.

If there is an elite cabal manipulating us, they aren't going to say so or provide the evidence for it, so we are left with speculation, ultimately.

I kind of think both sides are right.

People are greedy and short sighted enough to screw up a good thing, and with technology to speed everything up, it could just be an ignorant disaster.

On the other hand, when I see thing like the rise of tranny rights, and states like North Carolina getting boycotted by everyone for not letting men into women's bathrooms, or trannies suddenly competing in female sports, even in high schools, presented as a fait accompli, it's hard not to think there is a hidden, motivated, well funded, politically connected group manipulating things.





I lean towards the idea of the Atlanticists as put forth in Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope," running things in the background, or at least influencing things with a long view. I also think that the heads of the world powers and businesses are like any monopoly, pooling their resources and strategizing for mutual gain, with people like the Jewish influence groups, the feminists, and all that simply allowed to do their thing as long as it aligns for the most part with the goals of the elites.

A lot of the writing and videos of Jay Dyer on these subjects make sense to me, though I don' t necessarily think it is all coherent or as planned as it has been described.

The spiritual angle can't be dismissed either, and if you believe in spiritual forces for good or evil, it might well be malevolent spiritual entities influencing people in power, letting them think they are the smart ones pursuing their own ends. This could also explain the seemingly coordinated changes that appear to be cropping up in society.

Come on 911, let's hear your summarized theory. No need to trash Sp5. This is an interesting discussion.

I definitely think elites are involved, my own ideas suggests that, but there is more than one elite.

Quigley was writing 50 years ago, most of that old Eastern Establishment has been washed away or diminished in relative power. We are not in the days of the Dulles brothers, John McCloy, Robert Taft, and Henry Cabot Lodge anymore.

The late 60s and 70s changed things a lot. Things are more open to the public and more subject to public politics. There are now multiple "think-tanks" representing multiple interests pushing their agendas in Washington. There's a lot more than the CFR now.

Heritage, AEI, Brookings, Hudson, Center for American Progress, Center for New American Security, Cato etc. All with distinct sources of funding and distinct points of view, all supply staffers to Congress and the Executive.

Tech bros in the Pacific Northwest and oil guys in Texas are "elites" but have different cultural and economic objectives. There are "elites" in retail, academia, medicine, finance, all competing or cooperating.

There's no Central Committee deciding things.

Quote

I was tempted to vote "leftists," but ultimately didn't choose anything because I don't think any of the options really fit the bill.

The underlying reason why things are as bad as they are now is because the means of production and distribution of goods underwent massive changes in the last 200 years, alienating people from their traditional paradigms. The elites, Jews, feminists, leftists, whatever group you want to single out, they and their actions are only manifestations of those greater societal and economic shifts.

It's ironic that the sickest degeneracies like homosexuality, transgenderism, militant feminism, and so on arose in the free, democratic West in the age of complete consumerism and commercialism. Meanwhile, in the communist totalitarian East, the worst they generally got was a few abortive free sex movements before the "red emperors" Stalin and Mao imposed largely traditional roles on the family, used traditional artistic mediums in their propaganda, and the like. Of course they also had loads of mass murder, state terror, and famine, so this is not to claim they were any better.

This leads me to think that the march to degeneracy and destruction is at least as much an unconscious process, driven by greed and capital, as it is the result of willful malice inflicted by hateful groups upon traditional society. The thing is, the evil, hateful people always existed. If you look at the ancient rulers and conquerers, few of them were good people by any normal moral standard. The barbaric anti-social rebels, the devil-worshippers, they were present throughout history. But the character of life back then was totally different. A lot of things we have lost today, such as the concepts of male responsibility and female chastity, or that art should be beautiful and not monstrous, were simply common sense and didn't even need mentioning. Industrialization and its fruits made it possible for the minority of degenerates and sickos to normalize their evil.

Once the wicked got into power, they used mass media and other fruits of technology to impose their will upon the rest of the population and present it as progress. In Russia 100 years ago they had Lenin, who realized that the masses would not develop revolution on their won and needed to be herded into it by a brutal vanguard Communist Party. In the West we have similar people — they are not violent revolutionaries but evil figures in the realms of finance, industry, popular culture, and so on. In the past, their insane influence could never so great as it is now, because back then nature and the limits of human technology dictated that such insanities like gay marriage, transgenderism, or "I don't need a man" feminism would have gone extinct quickly if they ever appeared.

In this light, I think our culture's fixation on Hitler is interesting. The Nazis represented a fanatical and direct attempt, using the most brutal mechanisms of both communism and capitalism, to consciously impose their vision of an idealized traditional civilization upon Europe. The way that Hitler and his henchmen wielded power with naked purpose is almost the exact opposite of how power is exercised by the elites of today, snaking insidiously towards a dark objective camouflaged by layers upon layers of laws, media narrative-shaping, educational paradigms, and the like.

This contrast makes conservatives tingle with fantasy and a little bit of subconscious envy, and it makes progressive elites shudder with the ancient fear of what might happen if someone ever worked up the same do-or-die resolve that Hitler had, and got enough people to follow him. This may have been what they were really thinking when they came up with the slogan "Never Again" — judging from post WWII history, preventing other mass murders was probably the least of their concerns.

Quote

^

Quote

I think the concept of Satan is actually pretty useful here.

It's hard to point to individuals and say "they are intentionally trying to destroy what is good about society" because so often, individual human beings simply aren't intellient or self-aware enough to understand their own behavior. Society has a larger "mind" which manifests itself in the collective actions of millions of imperfect and blind people.

Leftists are entirely insane. Gays and Trannies are self-destructive and want to tear down all that is true and healthy. But you will never get the individuals to admit that or see it, because all they see in their life is their own little bubble of reality which extends about 30 feet out and no more. they are too busy living some trauma or weird failure compensation script.

I know a lot of left wingers who are good friends. They firmly, religiously believe that Orange Man Evil. They are deluded. In some cases they are outright ignorant. I talk to them about family, children, travel, and they are wonderful friends. When Orange Man comes up, they become insane.

Satan is a very useful concept here. Satan is the collective movement of millions of fucked-up people, who as a group, trend towards evil. Group mind. Very dangerous and powerful and must be fought with our last breath. But I try not to hate the individuals. Most of them are sheep who have wandered astray.

There are clearly leaders of those evil flocks who are outright evil. Those you don't negotiate with.

Quote

(05-08-2019 01:14 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  but I have a different view, plot your time and observe. I believe they have grown drunk on their own power and status and we are in a time of Political Entropy.

I am persuaded this is accurate but what are you really saying here, Fools?

Quote