The next component of an existential threat to the Western civilization (and far more evident one) is, not surprisingly, consumerism. Liberals define freedom as freedom to satisfy all one’s legal wants and desires (i.e. those that do not violate a more or less standard Criminal Code).
First and foremost, obviously, material wants and desires – to purchase tangible goods and intangible services. They preach this “Gospel of consumerism” bot only to Westerners, but also to citizens of all other nations.
Unlike the Christian Gospels (which are salvific), the “Gospel of consumerism” is suicidal. Genuinely suicidal. For a very simple (and murderous) reason – unlike genuine needs, human wants and desires are unlimited.
In other words, we simply can not satisfy our wants and desires – we can only destroy our planet (and thus our civilization and ourselves) by consuming its very much finite natural resources.
It is still not yet certain that the proverbial (and possibly catastrophic) “climate change” is the result of (ultimately) our runaway consumption, but if we do not put some serious brakes on the latter, it pretty soon would be. With murderous consequences for “all of the above”.
The only way to put these breaks is to recognize the obvious and irrefutable psychological facts. First, we can only be happy by satisfying our (very much limited) genuine needs – financial, functional, emotional and spiritual – according to Maslow’s hierarchy of (genuine) human needs.
Second, with very few exceptions, human beings can not identify their genuine needs (hence the proliferation of “self-help” gurus, groups, books, videos, seminars, retreats, etc.). Someone has to do it for them.
And, finally, there is the sixth (highest) level in Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs: self-transcendence. In practical terms, it means that a human being can only be genuinely happy by “transcending oneself” – i.e. serving something higher than oneself – his/her community, country, nation and, yes, race (more on that later).
This service, obviously, requires placing the “common good” (i.e., the interests of “all of the above”) above the “individual good” (i.e. one’s own “selfish” interests, wants and desires).
Consequently, every government (top to bottom) must focus not on “democracy”, “human rights” and even “The Law” but on genuine happiness of its constituents. In other words, on identifying and satisfying the genuine aggregate needs of the nation in question – financial, functional, emotional and spiritual.
And thus on helping its constituents identify and satisfy their needs (including creating powerful incentives to do it – stick to a healthy diet, exercise regularly, minimize consumption of alcohol, etc.).
Including, obviously, creating a system that will create sufficient motivation (and provide the necessary tools) for self-transcendence, i.e. serving one’s community, nation, state and, yes, race.
For all citizens – everyone must serve “all of the above” to achieve genuine happiness. The reason for that is simple and salvific – only self-transcendence is powerful enough to become a workable replacement (in terms of emotional and spiritual value) for consumerism.
As only giving is a workable replacement for consuming and only creating aggregate value (financial, functional, emotional and/or spiritual) for one’s stakeholders (i.e., one’s neighbors) is a suitable replacement for excessive consumption of this value.
Obviously, liberalism can not do that (and thus can not save the Western Civilization and the whole humankind from a genuinely existential threat of consumerism).
Because it would require doing away with individualism; accepting the irrefutable facts that the common good is more important than individual good; that serving one’s community, state, nation and race is more important than one’s selfish interests; and that the government must tell (but not force, of course – it is simply impossible) individuals what to do (i.e. which needs to satisfy).
Only national-socialism can. More precisely, neo-national-socialism, because, although Adolf Hitler and the Nazis implicitly did something very similar, their system was highly imperfect (to put it mildly).
And its “side effects” were criminal, murderous and ultimately suicidal. Consequently, “neo-national-socialism” must radically differ from its predecessor in many key aspects – and I have no doubt that The Black Sun Society and Die Neue SS will make the necessary changes.