Density, dependence, destruction

I’ve wondered lately whether the approaching twilight of Western civilization is the inevitable consequence of its success. That with “progress” our institutions would so evolve from their origins that we would no longer be able to discern the basic truth of ourselves. And then we slide back into a state nature, only to rediscover the truth and start over again. As Bane said to Batman: “Peace has cost you your strength. Victory has defeated you.”

The modern Democratic Party stands for what its leader, President Obama, calls “fundamental transformation.” It stands for reorienting nature towards the party’s own ends. It stands for “liberating” us from the rules woven into the fabric of our world and our existence. It stands for dashing the old traditions of community and placing in their stead a society of individuals obedient to “enlightened” governance.

It makes perfect sense, then, that the Democratic Party wins the majority of its support in American cities, where civilization (i.e., the erosion of humanity) is furthest along. Reading the 2012 election returns, Dave Troy spells this out. Our cities are dense with people and their creations. They are like monuments to ourselves, attracting us like moths. Whereas in ancient times the city was a fortress to protect people from invasions, now it serves as a permanent bulwark against confrontation with nature. There’s too little earthly wisdom in the city, because in the city there is no earth.

Take the city slicker out of the city, away from the thousands of people he’s codependent on, away from everyone he pays and votes for to make his life easy, away from his Internet and modern appliances. And stick him in the countryside where he has to make things with his hands to survive, where the sprawling, unprocessed earth beckons him to back-breaking labor. The stark, physical, hardscrabble reality terrifies the city slicker. It exposes the frailty the city sheltered him from. Ironically his way of life in the city wouldn’t be possible without people who lived the hard way.

In the country, it is a daily commune with nature. The sense of community is stronger because one is surrounded by the mortal threat of complete solitude. People are kinder, more helpful, and—yes—dubious of outsiders upsetting the delicate order of things. That order is never perfect, but it is the best that can be done, and most importantly it is self-regulating. That isn’t the case in the city, where the bystander effects reigns supreme, order is imposed from the top, and mutual anonymity discourages neighborliness. The functions of community are better left to various levels of government and disembodied corporations.

Such a system is “efficient,” as Troy points out. This is the party of the Left’s measuring stick: “efficiency.” It sounds good, until it’s used to squelch human enterprise. Troy goes on: “An America that is not built fundamentally on density and efficiency is not competitive or sustainable.” I don’t see how permanent urbanization is in any way sustainable. If specialization is forever the future, we can look forward to being human cogs in a great, inhuman machine, cloistered from the earth God made us to live in.

As the president would say: “Forward.”

About Joseph Dooley

I’m 28 years old and I’ve been writing since I learned how to type. I grew up in Texas but I lived nearly 5 years in the belly of the liberal beast, Maryland. Through my writing, I hope to convince readers of the truth and help to reverse the suicidal momentum of the present. As Francis Schaeffer wrote: “Any ways in which the system is still working is largely due to the sheer inertia of the continuation of the past principles. But this borrowing cannot go on forever.” Check out my blog, "Life's complexity and mortal weight."


One thought on “Density, dependence, destruction

  1. Great and discerning posting. The rural will never again be able to defeat the urban. Instead of redistribution of wealth, we need a redistribution of political power from dependent cities to independent property owners. The founding fathers once qualified voters by their property ownership. There was reason in this. Thanks to you, Joseph, and to The Red Pill for pointing out our dilemma.

    Posted by Linus | December 10, 2012, 7:23 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by sword. The other is by debt." -John Adams 1826


Red Pill Report is a labor of love for the many contributors who post here. They share their thoughts and talents with us because, like you, they love this great Country and hope to contribute in some small way to returning America to the principles on which it was founded. How can you help? Please share our articles with friends and family. Share buttons for Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, and Email are found at the bottom of each article. Our writers also love your comments, so please share your thoughts with us, when you can. We appreciate our readers, and would love to have more! Thank you!




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34,787 other followers

%d bloggers like this: