aesthetics society technology Warfare

Toward A Post-Western Aesthetic

At heart, the problem with Western Civilization is that it falls into the trap of the peacock’s tail striving for constant growth with flashy results but little thought of basic utility, sustainability, or resilience in the face of sudden shocks.

So great is the focus on competing for dominance now that no one has the time to think centuries ahead.

The truth is Western civilization and its philosophy was utterly discredited by the 20th century with its World Wars, Communist mega-states that killed off tens of millions, disasters like the Great Depression and Spanish Flu that the destruction and despair made possible.

Let’s face it, no one really believes in their hearts anymore that the future is good or meaningful and there’s no going back to the way it was.  The mood of the collective subconscious has been pre-apocalyptic since around the year 2000 and now among the most dominant symbols in the modern imagination are zombies that represent social alienation and atomization and evil clowns that represent mass sociopathy and chaos.

Symbol of a society where no one knows their neighbor and has to compete against everyone in a dehumanized rat race. Zombies originally a metaphor among Africans for how slavery took away one’s previous identity.
Symbol of a society where you have to adopt dark triad traits to survive. And our secret dissatisfaction with such a social order. Secretly many of us would just like to watch it all burn but can’t admit it even to ourselves.

The evolution of the West has produced impressive deer antlers but has created a society that is top-heavy and fragile.
The cost spiral started to get out of control with the rise of professional armies and the end of the feudal system until now it costs a trillion dollars to design a new weapon system, let alone manufacture, maintain, or deploy it and nearly a trillion every year to pay for old people and their medical care.  Soon, even all the wealth in the world can’t pay the basic bills and eventually even ever-growing loans can’t fill all the gaps.

Western civilization, with its stock markets, its winner-take-all economic systems and social status markets worships the growth pattern of short-lived weeds that choke the ground in a hurry before winter wipes them all away.  

I would rather worship the growth pattern of lichens that creep slowly, meticulously reinforcing each new growth area against hardship.
I would envision an ideal future civilization as being minimalistic, practical, and durable in its applications of technologies.
Extreme disparity in cost is why a single division worth of guerillas can challenge all the world’s great powers in the Middle East, why a guy with an ak-47 riding on a donkey beats a cruise missile or a drone, why a handful of men with boxcutters can shift the course of a nuclear superpower for decades, why an illegal immigrant Mexican roofer can have 3 kids while a salary striver that makes 70k a year can’t even afford 1 kid.
In future warfare, high technology will be limited to targets of appropriate value and low value forces will try to exert stategic pressure that forces cost-inefficient responses.

Much of the vanity of West is its stubborn insistence dating back to Christianity and reinforced by the Enlightenment that man inhabits a different universe than the rest of nature.  In truth the same laws that govern planets, rocks, animals, and bacteria bind humans just the same.

To set the tone for a society that works with the nature of the universe rather than try to defy it, we must begin to imagine what a Post-Western society might look and feel like.
In my next post I will begin to explore a possible aesthetic for such an order, according to my own sensibilities.  

My aesthetic will be austere, minimal, defensive, yet embrace a sort of stark beauty in contrast to a modern civilization of neon-bright advertisements that overload the eyes as high fructose corn syrup overwhelms the palate.

But it also won’t echo the old West cathedrals and row-houses with their straight lines and rigid rectangles, however pretty or pleasing they may be.
My aesthetic will try to appear more fluid, representing a lack of boundaries between man and nature, between intellect and the flesh.  For it’s precisely such dichotomies that gave rise to the West’s most debilitating neuroses.

By Giovanni Dannato

In 1547 I was burnt at the stake in Rome for my pernicious pamphlet proclaiming that the heavens were not filled with a profusion of aether, but rather an extensive vacuum.
Now, the phlogiston that composed my being has re-manifested centuries in the future so that I may continue the task that was inconveniently disrupted so long ago.
Now, I live in Rome on the very street where I (and others) were publicly burnt. To this day, the street is known as what I would translate as 'Heretic's Way'. My charming residence is number 6 on this old road. Please, do come inside and pay me a visit; I should be delighted to spew out endless pedagoguery to one and all...

8 replies on “Toward A Post-Western Aesthetic”

You are on the right track. It fascinates me how everyone keeps analyzing the ‘fall of the west’ and what to do about it.
The fact is we are all part of the Anglo American (non) culture, a ‘post’ civilization’ that never was a civilization, but only a reflection, an echo of civilization. We’re trying to save, or diagnose a culture that has been dedicated to destroying western culture, history and civilization since the 1850 and earlier- a project began by the English, an Imperial system, the NWO. We assume we are western civilization – we are post western civilization. Did they really think they could destroy Europe and carry on? Destroy the source. We lie to ourselves that we created all this – computers, airplanes, television, internet, spacetravel. We did not invent any of it – we stole it, we just exploit, “innovate”, we do not invent or create. They say ‘great artists steal’, we should be great artists, but we have no art, just commerce,marketing, salesmanship, ‘innovation’. There will be no more great inventions, just an incestuous cycle with technology. We are not what we think we are. There is nothing left to exploit, but ourselves. We can’t see the enemy or the problem, because we are inside it -the matrix, we are the enemy and the problem. War is the only answer, and War is unthinkable. Yet war is preferable to what the future holds for the human race.

As I see it, the West people want to bring back was destroyed forever by the Great War, what was left epically finished off by WW2.
By 1918 the Western political order was shattered beyond recognition with the collapse of several great empires. The aristocracy that everyone had looked up to were responsible for civilizational mass suicide. They had lost the mandate of heaven forever. Less than a decade earlier the West looked hyper-optimistically to everlasting progress and triumph of reason. No dispelling of this myth could have been more cruel and so that spirit has never recovered. WW2 obliterated the remnants with such total overkill even the colonies could no longer be sustained and today the roles are even reversed.

Aesthetically, we can see that the last truly Western period of art was impressionism and everything since has been considered some form of modernism or post-modernism.

It’s now been a century since the first great suicide, with Marxist Materialism the only principle that survived the cataclysm, like only Taco Bell survived the franchise wars. No one goes about trying to bring back the Roman Empire or the Athenian League, time to move on and figure out what comes next.

I agree with both points, especially impressionism, which in literature and philosophy was ‘existentialism’ . It was amazing how advanced, how ethereal impressionism was, what works it created, while at the same time it’s flavour was decadence. In art however great, much of it was just a return to outlier ideas of the Italian Renaissance. I’m thinking of Mallarme, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Valery, with Thomas Mann and Yukio Mishima at the bookends in letters. You can find Italian homologue’s 200 yrs earlier, just a different environment. Reflecting on certain points in your comments above, it may be because that is what survived, finding again a public able to tune to that frequency.
Not only Marxist Materialism survived…the US is a cyborg British Empire. It’s tactics as well as targets are exactly the same. It is the undead, zombie of the British Empire System, garrisoned by half caste sepoys, but it is the exact same… everything it is doing is a perfect echo of the last decades of the 19 century, everything, I have never seen such symmetry, such transparency when you understand it. and its spell still works on the public. The British Empires shadow is Marxist Materialism – the BE has an elaborate pretense of European values and mores, but this is only for the consumption of the upper castes, for everyone else it is Marxist Materialism – Utilitarianism, Darwinism, the Animal Farm.
Good articles

Impressionist period works strike me as a good balance between form and experimentation, expression and representation. I look at old paintings of snobby lords or swooning martyrs and quickly get bored. I see an impressionist painting where you can see the motion of the grass in the wind or the movement of the stars in the sky and it holds my attention fast. I like how that style conveys how the artist feels about the subject of the painting. I don’t as often get that feeling from the older art. Guys like Rembrandt make me feel something about the people in the image, most don’t.
I like that ethereal, mystical feel in music as in images.
I feel airy impressionist Debussy and impassioned romantic era Dvorak are like two sides of my personality.
What I see happening after the great war is the openness and experimental character goes off a cliff until it degenerates into paint splatters, primary colored squares, works that rebel against representing any forms at all to convey the nihilist despair and mechanical unfeelingness of modernism.

I gather from your spelling and diction you’re British. As an American I can only see US imperial rule as a poor man’s version of the British Empire.
The main commonality I see is both relied heavily on naval power.
But beyond that it seems like the British mostly put business and expediency before ideology.
Americans on the other hand following the Wilsonian philosophy put ideology before all else. Nothing else can explain how they would have been willing to spend 6 trillion dollars fighting wars in impoverished backwater regions on the other side of the planet.
The British played off local lords against each other in proxy wars and then swept in to clean up once they were weakened.
The UK was also smarter about what they held onto. They set up shop in strategic ports and near strategic resources. They were fine leaving everyone else to their own devices most of the time, so long as they didn’t cause trouble.
The US couldn’t even govern Iraq. It’s unimaginable it could have ruled over India, let alone half the planet. And the British did it with less resources, much smaller population, no aircraft carriers, no tanks, pre-modern artillery.
As you note yourself, the British Empire, like the Dutch Empire, began as a business enterprise. Perhaps it did set a precedent for where we’ve ended up as a society where everything is business.

We’re not committing suicide. We were murdered. (((Who))) exactly is it that pushed Marxism and (((who))) paid to take over Russia? (((Who))) exactly is the group that pushed modern art?

As a White Man I reject all of the things you say “we” are doing.

Look, I know Marx was a Jew. So was Ricardo, for that matter. But I see those guys as developing Western ideas rather than trying to sneak in ideas from another source. Marx just took a lot of gentile enlightenment thinking and brought it to its ultimate logical conclusion. Gentile elites like Bentham thought very similarly. The Scottish Enlightenment was the movement that proposed treating entire peoples and their activities only in terms of what could be measured. So I see Marx more as a disciple of Adam Smith or Hume than as a Jew. I feel like we have to give white people credit where it is due.
Jews are not omnipotent or invincible. Even leading up to the Russian Revolution, the Jewish-heavy Mensheviks were easily outmaneuvered by the Bolsheviks.
As far as I can tell Jews really only became a big elite in the West in the 20th century or so. They’re smart and have good teamwork but staying at the top is competitive.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s