*Individualism, Collectivism, and Technology: the playbook of the Tower of Babel 

This trifecta, this playbook, has been used devastatingly well by followers of the Enlightenment.

The way it works is very simple. It flips narratives upside down, to confuse regular people about what they are actually fighting for.

At each crucial turn in American history, this playbook has been used to subvert white European interests in favor of global ones. It has been used to convince Christians and whites to fight against our own long-term, in favor of the short. Perhaps, it is simply the song of a declining civilization.

In America, we can see that it has been used in each of these instances:

The American Revolution
The Civil War
World War II

It appears that another such time may be coming soon. But first, let us examine the past:

1. The American Revolution

The Founding Fathers leveled many accusations of collectivism and tyranny against England. This is why America venerated the individual: because it was originally based on divorcing from the larger English collective.

Now, it is not a bad thing that America became independent. It would be strange if it didn’t, considering how far away it is and how different it is from England.

However, the ideological justification used to separate America was faulty. It was Enlightenment liberalism which provided the vehicle for American separation, and thus which resulted in a muddy sense of American identity.

We are still haunted today by Jefferson’s proclamation in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” Of course, he did not mean it in the way today’s leftists interpret it. However, even in his original meaning, the statement is still wrong.

Men are not born equal; the circumstances of a man’s birth can and should be considered. Of course, God willing, he can sometimes rise above these circumstances. Does this mean they are unimportant? No, it does not.

After all, this is a classic argument of today’s individualism: “we are all human in God’s eyes. We are all individuals in God’s eyes. Therefore, we should not care about immigration, because to judge a man by his racial and national group would be judging him by his innate characteristics. And, this would be wrong.”

By saying that we cannot or should not judge a man by his birth, we have made it impossible to manage a nation effectively. There are simply too many people to judge everyone as an individual. And, even if we try, wouldn’t this be playing God? Who are we supposed to trust with this role?

The answer is yes, it is playing God. And the people who want you to trust them are the ones who use this playbook: they bring up God’s perspective and tie it with their goals for global government. Because people associate individualism with God’s perspective, it slips their mind to ask the question: is our government supposed to be assuming God’s global perspective on this Earth?

That, of course, is an entirely different question. But it is always buried under arguments that “all men are created equal” in God’s eyes. And these arguments come from the founding. They gave the founders legitimacy and support to break with the Divine rule of King George, and to replace it. Not with another divine rule, but with a rule of the universal principles of individual rights. The rule which can be otherwise known as Babel.



So: individualism, collectivism, and technology. How do these matter?

American individualism 





2. 

In the Civil War, we can once again see the same sequence of operations.

A nascent empire, with designs on neighboring land, pronounces that “individual human rights” reign supreme over collective considerations.

Using superior technology and numbers, they defeat the nation with a stronger racial and cultural consciousness. Then, they integrate all the nation’s citizens as “individuals,” and use this victory to build an economic and technological machine even stronger than before.

A large part of the arguments of Southern slaveholders, going back to the American Revolution, was that races are different. This was a distinction which existed poignantly in 1776: Benjamin Franklin, the most famous founding father at the time, believed that blacks people were the same as whites.

Southerners did not believe this. Of course, they were correct. How could blacks be the same? God formed them in a completely different climate, with different temperament and survival strategies. Southerners, being the ones who generally interacted with blacks, understood that any nation which considered blacks as citizens would no longer be a cohesive nation. How could it? If a race is completely different, it will have a different culture. It will congregate with itself, if it has the numbers to do so. This was the obvious outcome, and it is clearly so today. Blacks have never completely integrated into America, because they are a different race.

Nothing has really changed since 1776; but for the fact that Benjamin Franklin somehow reigns supreme. How is this possible? Black people are clearly different than whites, so how is the egalitarian position in power? Once again, it goes back to the playbook.

The Union soldiers didn’t support black equality either; they would hate American blacks today. So why did they fight for this reality we are told is so good?

Simple: they were led to believe, just as the Confederates were, that they were fighting for the good of their nation.

When the Civil War was begun, the Union soldiers were not motivated by ideas of “human rights.” They were motivated by the idea that the United States was their country, and they did not want that country to be broken apart or attacked or morally judged. Therefore, although they had essentially the same loves and fears as the Confederates, they were convinced to intervene.

In other words, the Union soldiers were basically as “collectivist” as the Confederates were. They were racist, nationalist, and xenophobic. They fought for a nation they thought they had.

However, after the war, a new narrative was formed: the Union saved the “individual rights” of black people as human beings. Through this, blacks were allowed to now be a part of America.

Did the Union soldiers want this? Not really. They certainly didn’t want blacks in their neighborhood. But that’s what happened anyway.

See, *before* the war, it was a patriotic affair. The point was to keep the nation together; to prevent a fracture or moral mistakes by fellow men.

After the war, however, it became a *human* affair. Suddenly, the focus went towards black people and their rights. This is when the first Civil Rights Act was passed: the Civil Rights Act of 1866. 

The inclusion of a foreign race into the “nation” of America resulted in a permanent weakening of the homogenous American collective, and an increase in the size of the multicultural collective. This laid the foundation for America’s transition to a full empire, 100 years later.







3. World War II

Once again, World War II soldiers did not give their lives for the sake of homosexuals or Muslim-“Americans”. They gave their lives for what the country was at that time: a white, Christian, Northern European, segregated nation. Most of them supported segregation.

However, as soon as they were convinced to intervene, as a “patriotic” matter, they did.

And, as a reward for this intervention, they were given greater “individual rights” - I.e. they became richer.


---
**The Modern Day**

So, “they” use this playbook every time. But who is “they”?

“They” is, quite simply, Westerners who seek power at the expense of the long term. Commoners call them “Freemasons”, “Jews”, “vampires”, “aliens”, and so on. Really, they are all of these things (except aliens. I think…)

Many people want a complex and conspiratorial explanation, but it is not so complicated. It is the same as Rome. As the civilization dies, it gradually becomes more focused on power and wealth than the long term. It becomes more individualist, collectivist, and materialist.




So. We have seen how this pattern is applied every time. We also know that the West has begun shrinking and is under massive pressure from invasion. We can see how arguments against enforcing our borders come straight from the Enlightenment liberalism of 300 years ago.

But how will it be applied again?

We are reaching a nadir; this may be the peak of the entire cycle. After one more assertion, the collectivist-individualist-technological state will probably run out of life force and then accept massive importation of foreign organs for the body (I.e. immigrants).

Currently, the American situation is approaching monarchy. It has been approaching monarchy since Trump, because Trump enjoys authority. 

However, we are also approaching technocracy. J.D. Vance, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Marc Andreesen, and others have all adopted right-wing populist ideology in recent years.

This is curious, because none of them seem like “men of the people”. Elon and Vance, maybe, but even those two are far less personable to the traditional conservative base than Trump is.

We must remember: Trump 2016 was a thoroughly conservative presidency. Trump 2024 is not well described as conservative: it is more akin to raw power.

The reason why our situation is strange is because this newly-ascendant technocrat camp is stretching America in two seemingly opposite directions: they are hungry to create more technology and empire than ever before, but they are also more overtly violent, xenophobic, and religious than any presidential candidates in the past 30 years.