The False Morality of the Modern Man

Preparing for the Coming Barbarity

Some children grow up in suburbia. Their homes and environments are orderly and clean, and their parents strive to prevent harmful bacteria from entering their abodes. Thus, these children are rarely ever sick. They are never exposed to conditions that would produce sickness. However, their lifelong lack of exposure inhibits their immune system’s development. So, they are more susceptible to pathogens than those raised outside. Therefore, they can project the illusion of health while remaining immunologically feeble.

I contend that morality is analogous to the immune system. And complex moral quandaries are like pathogens. Just as people exposed to diseases develop more robust immune systems, people exposed to moral dilemmas develop superior moralities to those who are never tested. Yet the ethical dilemmas they encounter compel decisions that, although lighter than their counterparts, are still dark enough to convince a naive observer that the person who evinced them was malicious. Meanwhile, people who have never confronted a difficult moral issue never need to make difficult ethical decisions. So, it is easy for them to display the veneer of pristine morality.

In both cases, the apparent superiority of the pristine person is a lie. They will collapse far more rapidly than their hardened counterparts if exposed to a condition similar to that which the latter endured. The clean one cannot resist the hazardous force. In the case of disease, they lack antibodies. In the case of moral questions, they lack tradeoff analysis.

Three questions readily emerge after recognizing this juxtaposition.

The first is, “Is it wise to expose the clean person to the hazard so they will develop the counter?”. An affirmative answer suggests that difficult moral choices should be contrived to bolster the moral fiber of cloistered people.

The second question is, “Should we expand the clean environments to envelope those already exposed to the hazard?” An affirmative answer suggests a governmental apparatus should spread to encompass humanity to suppress difficult moral decisions.

The third is, “Should hard barriers be imposed to protect clean people from hazards?”. An affirmative answer is that physical barriers, such as walls, should be built to shield the pristine from challenges that would exploit their poor morality.

The questions need answering because Western nations are collapsing, and complex moral questions increasingly accompany the loss of the easy lives Westerners have enjoyed — questions that they lack the wherewithal to answer because of the pampered lives they have experienced over the past several decades. Thus, we should expect exaggerated forms of barbarism to accompany the collapse. Fortunately, we are still in the early stages of our civilizational collapse, so reviewing the three questions presented by our poor moralities may yield timely and impactful discoveries.

Let us explore our options.

Answer 1: Exposure to Moral Dilemmas

Exposing people to moral dilemmas has potential benefits and risks, reflecting a complex balance between moral development and possible harm. On the one hand, exposure to challenging moral questions encourages individuals to develop resilience and critical thinking, much like the immune system benefits from encountering pathogens.

Moral development is often forged in the crucible of difficult decisions, where individuals weigh competing values and apply ethical frameworks to navigate challenging situations. Research supports this view, suggesting that facing morally complex scenarios strengthens moral reasoning, empathy, and the ability to handle ambiguity—underdeveloped skills in highly sheltered environments.

However, controlled exposure to moral challenges requires careful oversight to prevent psychological distress or moral cynicism. In some cases, constant exposure to ethically troubling situations can foster desensitization or justify moral compromise, especially if individuals feel that the ends always justify the means. Regular encounters with ethical gray areas may blur one’s moral clarity, increasing the likelihood of adopting morally relativistic attitudes. Therefore, while exposure to moral dilemmas can enhance resilience, it must be accompanied by challenging barriers that prevent deviance toward debauched ends.

The existence of morally hardened people will be beneficial during civilizational collapse. People who can navigate ethical gray areas are more trustworthy leaders during challenging times, maintaining their values under pressure. This moral strength can contribute to a healthier society, where individuals are neither naive nor cynically detached but grounded in a well-rounded sense of ethics.

On the other hand, indiscriminately exposing sheltered individuals to moral dilemmas may yield unpredictable results, as some may react defensively, rejecting the complexities of these scenarios outright. This reaction proves the importance of context and gradual exposure, which can help people reconcile personal values with social responsibility. As the need for morally resilient citizens grows, carefully structured exposure to moral challenges could be a way to foster a society that replaces self-serving rationalizations with moral tradeoff analyses.

Could this balanced exposure be the key to cultivating moral strength in an age of ethical turbulence?

Answer 2: Totalitarianism as a Solution to Barbarism

Implementing a totalitarian system to counter the perceived moral decay in society is a deeply contentious solution. On the one hand, proponents argue that centralized control could suppress harmful behaviors and restore a more cohesive moral framework by establishing clear, uncompromising standards. This approach hinges on the belief that a powerful government can protect "clean" societies from the moral degradation of the barbarous mass, thus preserving social order. By minimizing exposure to ethical dilemmas, a totalitarian structure would theoretically reduce the need for individuals to make morally ambiguous choices, reinforcing a simple, consistent set of values across society.

However, enforcing morality through totalitarianism carries significant ethical and practical challenges. While it might successfully limit certain undesirable behaviors, it also undermines personal freedom — fomenting oppression and suppressing dissent. Totalitarian regimes enforce strict adherence to state-sanctioned moral codes, leaving little room for personal interpretation or individual growth. This rigidity stifles creativity, hinders personal moral development, and creates a society where citizens follow the rules out of fear rather than genuine ethical commitment. In such environments, moral decisions become acts of compliance, stripped of their more profound significance as reflections of personal integrity.

Moreover, a totalitarian approach risks creating a superficially moral society that is brittle. With freedom curtailed, individuals lack the agency to confront moral questions independently, leaving them unprepared for unexpected ethical dilemmas. The moral fortitude gained from grappling with complex issues is replaced by a compliance-based morality that collapses when exposed to genuine adversity. This undermines resilience on both individual and societal levels, creating a moral "immune system" that is ill-equipped to handle challenges beyond the state's control, similar to a state's sheltered immune system facing actual pathogens.

When considering totalitarianism as a solution, it’s clear that while Big Brother may offer short-term stability, it cannot foster the moral strength and resilience complex societies need to thrive. Ethical growth typically requires freedom, reflection, and the opportunity to make choices—even difficult ones. Thus, a society built solely on imposed morality may appear orderly but lack the depth and flexibility that genuine moral engagement requires.

Is a controlled but fragile moral structure preferable to a resilient one built through individual moral trials? Maybe — if it’s big enough.

Answer 3: Building Literal Walls

The most apparent solution is building literal walls to separate “clean” or morally sheltered societies” from outside influences. Proponents argue that by physically restricting access to diverse or morally complex environments, communities can preserve a homogenous moral code free from external pressures that erode established norms. This approach suggests containment is an effective way to avoid moral exposure that could destabilize a society’s internal moral “purity” through physical isolation.

However, constructing literal walls to limit moral exposure presents numerous challenges. Walls create a false sense of security by assuming that moral or cultural decay solely comes from outside forces rather than internal dynamics. Yet isolated societies still experience internal moral challenges, and without exposure to broader perspectives, they may lack the resilience to adapt or evolve. Over time, insular communities can stagnate, as seen in cases where tightly controlled environments—such as cults or rigidly traditional societies—face crises when internal ethical issues arise without external reference points for resolution.

Additionally, walls as a strategy to preserve moral integrity often fail in a practical sense, as information and influence in modern society transcend physical boundaries. Social media, globalized news, and digital communication make it nearly impossible to restrict a population entirely from outside ideas or moral frameworks. Consequently, walls might provide temporary physical separation but cannot shield individuals from the flow of ideas, norms, and subversive debates that seep into even the most insulated environments. This strategy may, therefore, offer only superficial protection, leading to a brittle moral foundation that struggles to adapt when outside influences inevitably reach the population.

In a broader sense, building literal walls might also lead to unintended social consequences, including xenophobia and an exaggerated sense of moral superiority. This isolation can breed distrust of outsiders and reduce empathy, as the society behind the walls may come to view those on the outside as morally inferior. Rather than strengthening moral integrity, this divisive attitude can erode compassion and understanding, critical components of ethical strength. While walls offer an initial shield, they fail to equip society with the adaptive moral resilience required for navigating complex global issues in an interconnected world.

Could a more flexible and adaptable way to fortify moral integrity without resorting to physical isolation exist?

The Consequence of Doing Nothing

If society ignores the need to foster moral resilience, it will descend into barbarity. Savage behaviors will become commonplace amid the broader decline of civilization. As complex moral challenges increasingly arise alongside social, political, and economic instability, a population lacking robust moral fortitude will default to base instincts driven by self-preservation and immediate gratification rather than an ethical framework. We already observe this descent in the lower classes.

Unprepared to navigate ethically complex situations, people turn to violence, deceit, and exploitation as survival strategies, hastening the breakdown of social cohesion.

In a society where individuals have not been exposed to moral dilemmas or developed a nuanced understanding of ethical trade-offs, decision-making becomes impulsive and reactionary. Historical parallels suggest that societies on the brink of decline often see a resurgence of tribalism, factional conflict, and a disregard for common welfare in favor of self-serving interests. Again, we observe more instances of these daily.

When individuals lack moral structure, communal norms and obligations dissolve, creating an environment where foundational ethical principles are ignored and rejected. This shift mirrors the conditions seen in failed states or regions of lawlessness, where a lack of moral grounding facilitates a brutal might-makes-right mentality.

Further, neglecting moral development leaves society vulnerable to the rise of authoritarian figures and manipulative ideologies that prey on people’s insecurities and untested peoples’ instincts. As people abandon communal values for survival or personal gain, opportunistic leaders may exploit individual weaknesses to purchase power with the promise of stability.

With civilizational values eroded, people find it easier to accept and endorse violence against outgroups. They foster a culture where scapegoating, cruelty, and aggression become normalized. This return to savagery echoes past collapses, where unchecked barbarism flourished as societal structures disintegrated.

The decline into barbarity results from external pressures and is facilitated by the internal collapse of an underdeveloped moral system. A society lacking ethical antibodies is as vulnerable to moral decay as a sheltered immune system is to pathogens. By failing to develop moral resilience, individuals and communities risk succumbing to a savage form of “survival of the fittest,” where civility, empathy, and common decency succumb to brutality.

Would it not be wiser to prepare society with the ethical tools needed to withstand the pressures of an uncertain future?

The Coming Barbarity

I have written the preceding because I recognize the same civilizational collapse many others have observed. The collapse coincides with the increased frequency and severity of antisocial behaviors. Yet the problem posed by the impending barbarities has not found its place within conversations concerning the death of Western civilization and its replacement. The problem exists because of modern man’s poor morals and because the people who reproduce most rapidly within late-stage civilizations have an abundance of genetic antisocial behaviors.

And failure to address it is likely to result in literal scalpings.

So, exploring prophylactics and solutions to decivilized man's emergent barbarousness would be a boon to those fortunate unknowables who might one day be doused in gasoline and set ablaze if precautionary actions are taken.

I point a spotlight toward this issue on their behalf.

Why Civilizational Repair Is Impossible

The concerns I raise presume civilizational collapse and are a function of it. Their importance grows as civilization declines. Therefore, my fears of coming barbarism might be assuaged if the civilizational rot could be halted or reversed.

I doubt either option is viable.

Why the Collapse Will Not Stop

It is impossible to halt the collapse because it requires decisive and executive action. The factors driving our civilization’s death require means and methods of identification, and decisive action remediating the problems must follow their identification.

Yet the first criterion cannot be met because of our disinformation state. The volume of unreliable information and the difficulty of parsing it are so great that our ability to identify critical drivers of the decline is always dubious. Thus, although a few apparent factors can be known, many will never be found.

The second cannot be met for reasons similar to the first. However, the source of the problem is not the propaganda apparatus. This problem arises from the preponderance of faux intellectuals whom we cannot trust to solve problems because they are morons with poor morals. Yet such people represent the first, second, and third sources from whom solutions would be sought.

The third cannot be met because of the legislative and judiciary authorities’ power relative to the executive branch. Western countries are mercantile, and mercantilism favors a robust legislative branch. Our law-making bodies can effectively thwart the executive branch’s ability to act—thereby preventing any effort an executive might take to stop the decline.

So, confusion and obstruction undermine the action needed to halt the collapse.

Why the Collapse Is Irreversible

The Western collapse cannot be turned back, either. However, this current inevitability was not predestined. It has become so because of symptoms that have emerged over its lifetime. Each could have been solved at its onset, and the collapse would have been postponed—possibly indefinitely—if the weeds had been pulled before overtaking the garden. However, the necessary actions were never taken, and the floral garden is doomed to become a savage jungle.

Three forces drive the overgrowth.

The Dysfunctional System of Systems

Civilization is a complex system of systems, and Western Civilization is the most sophisticated one ever conceived. However, each of its subsystems is failing. They fail for two reasons: gamesmanship and liberalism.

Gamesmanship undermines the integrity of societal structures by perverting hierarchies, job duties, and incentive mechanisms. Individuals and groups use manipulative practices to advance personal interests at the expense of collective well-being. Their behavior corrupts hierarchies by promoting those who are adept at exploitation rather than those who are competent or trustworthy. Consequently, leadership positions are increasingly occupied by cunning sociopaths and exploitable goobers, leading to organizational inefficiency and dysfunction.

Moreover, gamesmanship distorts job duties by ensuring that fulfilling one's role effectively is less profitable than navigating internal politics and exploiting loopholes. Employees focus on appearing productive rather than contributing, using tactics like credit-stealing or blame-shifting to enhance their standing. This shift erodes professional standards and diminishes overall productivity as the true purpose of roles becomes secondary to personal aggrandizement.

Incentive structures are also compromised when gamesmanship rewards unethical behavior. When they win, gamers manipulate systems to suit their interests. This creates a feedback loop where exploitative practices are tolerated and incentivized, making it increasingly challenging to implement evenhanded incentive mechanisms. Gamesmanship will not cease because it offers immediate personal gains, and those who ascend through these means have little incentive to reform the systems that facilitated their rise.

Preoccupation with individual rights within liberalism has also permitted and empowered antisocial behaviors. The emphasis on personal freedoms often overshadows communal responsibilities, allowing individuals to justify monstrous actions under the guise of exercising their rights. This imbalance leads to increased tolerance of behaviors that disrupt social cohesion and undermine mutual respect, as the assertion of rights takes precedence over the well-being of others.

The focus on individual rights has weakened mechanisms for accountability. Legal and social institutions hesitate to intervene against antisocial actions for fear of infringing upon personal liberties. Individuals engaging in harmful behaviors can exploit this reluctance, invoking their rights to avoid consequences. As a result, societal norms erode, and communities struggle to maintain order and safety when antisocial actions go unchecked.

The issue’s continuation is inevitable because liberalism's foundational principles strongly protect individual freedoms, dooming any attempt to recalibrate the balance between rights and responsibilities. Efforts to address antisocial behaviors are often met with accusations of authoritarianism or oppression. Therefore, the empowerment of such behaviors persists, fueled by an unwavering commitment to individual rights that resists measures aimed at promoting collective responsibility.

Brainwashed Elites

Our brainwashed elites also drive the decline. Rulers of Western nations have adopted ideologies that disconnect them from practical realities. They are indoctrinated within institutions emphasizing fidelity to Woke and embracing philosophies without suffering their practical consequences. This adherence to inflexible beliefs hinders effective decision-making, as policies are shaped more by ideological conformity than by pragmatic solutions tailored to societal needs.

This ideological rigidity among elites permeates various sectors, including politics, academia, and corporate leadership, to the detriment of those sectors’ adaptability and longevity. Dissenting opinions are dismissed, creating an echo chamber that reinforces existing dogmas. This environment stifles critical analysis, essential for identifying and addressing the underlying issues contributing to the societal decline. Consequently, ineffective or detrimental policies remain unchallenged, accelerating civilization's downward trajectory.

Our civilization is unlikely to purge itself of this issue, and it is unlikely to cease because the systems that cultivate these elites also reinforce their beliefs. Educational institutions, media outlets, and professional networks reward conformity and punish mild dissension. These elites, bolstered by their positions of authority, have the means to shape narratives and suppress counterarguments, making external correction difficult. As long as these reinforcing structures remain unaltered and as long as power validates their worldviews, the influence of brainwashed elites will persist, further entrenching the factors driving civilizational decline.

Civilizational Dysgenics

Civilizational dysgenics had led to a significant erosion of societal vitality, contributing to an irreversible decline that culminated in the collapse of society. Over time, shifts in population dynamics and social policies have resulted in the proliferation of traits and behaviors undermining stability and progress. People less inclined toward education, civic responsibility, and long-term planning have become more prevalent, diminishing the collective capacity to sustain complex societal structures.

This decline manifests in numerous ways: educational attainment has declined, economic productivity has waned, and social cohesion has weakened. Institutions struggle to function effectively, and the shared values that once bound communities have eroded. Governance falters, legal systems are corrupted, and interpersonal relationships deteriorate. The cumulative impact of these factors has accelerated civilization's downward spiral, making it increasingly impossible.

Efforts to reverse the effects of civilizational dysgenics are futile due to deeply rooted social dynamics and the complexity of implementing effective solutions. Initiatives promoting education, fostering social responsibility, and enhancing community engagement have been insufficient to counteract the entrenched trends. As a result, civilization continues to unravel, with the forces contributing to societal decline becoming ever more ingrained and irreversible.

The collapse has become a foregone conclusion, sealed by the very mechanisms that once promised progress and enlightenment.

Final Words

Which brings us to the end.

The collapse of Western civilization is apparent and often remarked upon. It precipitates barbarism. Yet those who gawk at the falling idol cannot see the emergence of the vicious hordes welling up behind them. The horde can and should be broken because its members are bestial psychopaths.

I have written this post to present the issue and introduce preemptive measures that we might take to pull out the weeds before they overtake the garden. It will scaffold future writings on the coming barbarity.

This has been Gene of the Space Guild.

End transmission.