A New Society — A Response
Designing a new world is certainly an intriguing pastime. Leaving it to elders and corrupt elites would not just be morally reprehensible, but also a tragic loss of fun. It is therefore with great joy that I encountered D.F.. Williams’ essay A New Society in the dawn of this grey European morning. Williams makes some very solid points, many of which I agree with. European petty Nationalism offers little in the way of future prospects. A European heartland as a haven for disintegrating post-colonial settler populations is certainly one way forward. And as cosy as those primitivist Varg videos from the French countryside might have been, stuffing the globalist cat back into its bag sounds like it would be quite tough to accomplish. A way forward going beyond The Future is the Past is therefore sorely needed.
Now that the laudatio is out of the way, let us proceed to the actually interesting part — the disagreements. For it is out of dispute that we derive synthesis, the way of the future.
I would like to question three main points. First, an overall focus on efficiency and effectivity without an equally descriptive view on the goal to which these effects are to be employed. Second, the theme of division permeating the essay. Third, the topic of growth.
Goals and Effectivity
As for the first point, I do not wish to imply that Williams writes entirely about efficiency. The move towards a unified Pan-European society certainly constitutes a valid goal in and of itself. However, societies are usually set up to fulfil one or multiple goals that go beyond their immediate existence. The Roman Empire spread its culture and the Pax Romana to the far reaches of the world. The Holy Roman Empire spread Christianity throughout Europe. Colonial Empires discovered entirely new worlds beyond the great seas. The short-lived National Socialist Empire of the 1930s and 1940s focused on survival, carving out new living space from a continent riveted and humiliated by industrialized military and economic warfare. The current cosmopolitan Western Empire appears to seek the deracination and degeneration of European society. What shall be the purpose of our new society? Again a focus on mere survival? Combat against Chinese Imperialism and Third World hordes? The next generation of technics, finally leading us to the stars? All of it? Form follows function. How we answer this question will influence the structure of our society.
As the author has requested that we name concrete alternative, my suggestion is that our society would adopt as its goal the synthesis of technology and natural life, which in itself contains the need for innovative approaches to preserve European influence amidst the global power struggle.
Division and Segmentation
Regarding our second point, Williams lays a certain emphasis on the concept of division or segmentation, particularly in the domains of a split into a ruling class and society at large, the split between urban and rural sections of society, and to a certain extent also a segmentation of education, based on an early separation of young Europeans into specialized education paths according to their talents and interests. Although this may very well lead to significant efficiency gains, especially in the domain of education, I would consider this point to be fatal, if carried out to its full extent. Let us consider the different domains.
A governing class isolated from the society it governs is not a new concept. In fact, it appears to be somewhat of a natural impulse for rulers to follow. Palaces, bodyguards, tight schedules, insignia of power — all of these serve to separate the ruler from the commoner, albeit not with the laudable focus on asceticism proposed by Williams. This tends to result in the concept of ivory towers — rulers who forget or never knew about ordinary life, thus severely limiting their ability to make positive long-term decisions. Examples for this are numerous — late Roman emperors, Marie-Antoinette, legislators and governments in all modern representative “democracies”, CEOs of multinational corporations.
To a certain extent this also applies to strict segmentation in the educational and professional sector. A doctor unfamiliar with the daily struggles of a construction worker will fail to prescribe effective treatment and realistic measures for prevention. A manager unfamiliar with software development will make some very odd decisions for the future direction of important projects. Furthermore, a strong focus on specialization complicates any future reskilling efforts. As technology lifecycles are unlikely to decelerate, the ability to direct people into new working grounds becomes increasingly vital.
As for the split into urban and rural life, I am wondering if this is even necessary. Of course it makes sense to concentrate large-scale industry into an urban area, partially for efficiency reasons, partially to relieve nature and the countryside from the burden of chemical, noise and light pollution. However, these urban areas should be severely limited in their scope. Urban and suburban sprawl has been a blight on large swaths of the planet, posing a significant danger to human and planetary welfare alike. Virtually all humans benefit from exposure to non-urban areas, both mentally and physically. A walk in the countryside can make the difference between a great day and a sad, depressed weekend. At the same time, information technology allows remote participation in the great tasks of technological society. Assuming sufficient network coverage, people can write and implement algorithms from distant cottages or hold a conference call while picking blackberries. Artificially creating an urban and a rural population seems unnecessary at this point.
Students of 20th century history will know that Third Positionist movements of the past actively promoted the integration of different segments of the (racially homogeneous) population. Youth movements comprised of all family backgrounds explored their ancestral homelands, staying in specifically created youth hostels on their travels. Different professions were encouraged to respect each other and work together under a paternalistic management, tasked with considering the common good in their decisions. The ruling class was indeed fostered in a meritocratic, possibly somewhat elitist manner, but only after they proved themselves in the integrated youth groups. A strong focus was laid on the ongoing interaction between ruler and ruled. I believe that this is still a viable way for the future.
Population and Growth
The third point relates to the question of growth. It is primarily based on the following sentence in Williams’ essay, but also has some interdependencies with the question of efficacy and efficiency raised earlier.
The European population is shrinking every year, it will take time and effort to reverse this process. For now, we must be pragmatic.
The European population is indeed shrinking. Is this necessarily a negative development? Certainly the fact that the global percentage of people of European descent is disconcerting and not at all desirable. Regarding the total number of people (and the resources they consume) however, the case is not as clear-cut. Many Europeans lead culturally, spiritually and physically empty existences. The resource of human labor is increasingly becoming less scarce, partially due to insipid immigration and offshoring schemes, but also through comparatively virtuous developments in automation and overall efficiency gains. As a result, many of us feel like they exist merely to increase consumption — a feeling which unfortunately is not altogether incorrect.
Currently this issue seems to come down to a question of a quantity versus quality. The number of Europeans is important and we should be glad for every healthy child that is born to us. But there are also undeniable long-term benefits to thinning the herd down to a quality stock of individuals. I am not saddened at the notion of the anti-natalist who refuses to breed, for he carries an element of sickness within himself. I mourn heroes and martyrs who end their own bloodline for the common cause, yet their sacrifice will live on even if they themselves remain without descendents.
Dealing with a post-growth is a challenge, not only in economics but also regarding our population. With 6,8% of global land mass, Europe is a comparatively small continent. A retreat to Europe necessarily means a downsizing of population (there was a reason why the Americas were all the rage a few hundred years ago — overpopulation in Europe) if we want to live within the means this continent affords to us. But Europe is also defensible by a small, determined force. We can work with what we already have.
