Original · Awakened Nightwatch Supreme Commander · June 16, 2024 · Guangdong
First, natural selection filters out survivors. Second, the winners of the survival competition claim the resources of production and livelihood. Third, the most efficient laborers monopolize the channels of upward mobility. Finally, those who hold resources and control the channels of advancement monopolize the power to define right and wrong.
Preface#
A murder occurred in a residential compound in Chengdu. A woman killed another woman. The victim’s mother called property management, but the security guard did not intervene — when he saw the killer draw a knife, he turned and ran.
The incident set off a storm of outrage. The victim’s mother blamed the security guard for not intervening. Public opinion was overwhelmingly critical of the guard — and almost no one directed their attention toward the actual killer.
Female lawyers and female law professors joined the chorus on social media, steering all the anger and blame squarely onto the security guard.
Fortunately for the narrative, the killer was a woman. Had the criminal been a man, the imagined storylines would have become far more grotesque — this tendency has become extremely pronounced. Some people even deliberately manipulate impressionable young women…
Through fabricated narratives and wishful empathy, they immerse themselves in a perpetual atmosphere of victimhood and grievance. At its core, the victim mentality is a weak person’s mentality. Someone who habitually wallows in this mindset can never escape that internal prison. Those who have read No Saving Them — Truly, No Saving Them will understand: people in this state are permanently incapable of engaging normally with the outside world.
Their inner victim emotions and sense of grievance compel them to engage with the outside world in abnormal ways, which only makes others more resentful and isolating toward them — which in turn deepens their dependence on the victim atmosphere.
Earlier, there was another public incident worth noting. Two women got into an argument on the subway. A security guard stepped in to maintain public order and asked the disruptive woman to leave. She refused and made a scene, so the guard tried to remove her — and in the process, her jacket got pulled. This triggered a tidal wave of public condemnation. Not only did ordinary women universally condemn the guard for overstepping, but a female law professor at a university took to social media to set the tone: she declared that even if the woman had been committing murder, the security guard had no right to handle her that way — only the police could intervene. (This law professor’s statements can still be found online today.)
The debate over whether a security guard has the right to intervene became overwhelmingly one-sided. Not just the female law professor — female lawyers and every woman who spoke up agreed: the security guard was overstepping, and had no right to get involved in a dispute between two women.
Under the barrage of public pressure, the guard — who had been doing his job — was forced to apologize and was disciplined. From that point on, security guards everywhere became rational about their situation.
After all, you’re earning a few hundred yuan, a thousand at most. There’s no reason to risk your life for that kind of money — as long as you’re not at the scene, nothing has anything to do with you. From that point on, when security guards see a conflict, they no longer rush in to stop it — they immediately leave. That is exactly what the Chengdu compound guard did. Even if someone dies, when the police come to investigate and take statements, it has nothing to do with him. His job is to watch the gate. He clocks in on time every day, fulfills his responsibilities, and earns every yuan of his few hundred. Everything else is not his concern — and since he wasn’t at the scene, he can’t even testify as a witness. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly legal.
And once again it was that same female professor — the one who previously declared that even if someone were committing murder, the security guard had no right to intervene, that only the police could act. And now she was condemning the guard for inaction. This person is a law professor. Not only does she have an advanced education, she is a teacher and role model — and yet she can be this flagrantly hypocritical. This forces us to reconsider some of our ancestors’ rules — perhaps what we’ve dismissed as feudal relics were in fact the optimal choices forged through thousands of years of repeated practice.
Did the security guard do anything wrong? Not in the slightest. Is self-preservation a crime? Moreover, he had no right to intervene. A person who has no right to get involved, who rashly gets involved anyway, not only gets blamed afterward but could get stabbed by that female killer. Is it worth risking that much for a few hundred yuan?
A man spends his whole life chasing one word: worth it. The saying goes that a true man would die for someone who truly knows him — because that person is his confidant, and giving everything for their appreciation is worth it. But risking your life for a few hundred yuan? That is simply not worth it.
It’s the same with marriage — spending half your assets for the privilege, any person in their right mind would see that as a losing deal. Only when men are naive and oblivious do they enter into this losing trade. Once they see the true picture, they stop deceiving themselves and start doing the math. And when they do the math, they find: it’s not worth it.
The same logic applies to police. An officer is absolutely not risking his life against criminals for a few thousand yuan a month. There was a period when a popular refrain circulated in public discourse: “That’s their job, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Taxpayers fund them, so they should serve taxpayers.” At first glance this sounds reasonable. Look closer, and it falls apart. If security services were priced by market principles, police salaries should be benchmarked against the rates of international private bodyguards. Ask yourself what Jack Ma’s security detail charges — then honestly ask: would you be willing to pay that much for personal protection?
Nobody throws themselves into mortal danger for a few thousand yuan. Whether it’s drug enforcement, counter-terrorism, or ordinary detective work — the reason these people risk their lives is because they believe protecting the peace of their community is something genuinely honorable and worth fighting for. They are fighting for that conviction in their hearts, not for the few thousand yuan that your taxes send their way. But if you strip away the worth of what they believe in — if you make that conviction meaningless — they will recalculate the risks and rewards.
As I have explained repeatedly in previous articles: people who see themselves as weak instinctively sink into a weak person’s mentality — their psychological structure guides them into the victim role, where they become soaked in grievance. All their behavior ultimately leads to: self-imprisonment, self-isolation, self-loathing, and self-destruction. People in this psychological state compel those around them to submit to their will, yet everything they pursue is utterly scattered, directionless, and self-contradictory — a slow-motion train wreck. The more tolerant and accommodating people around them become, the less anyone can change them — and those people get steadily drained and dragged into the mud, ultimately destroyed together…
Our ancestors established so many rules that on the surface appear cold-blooded, even cruel. But having survived so many dynastic collapses and crisis moments, this set of ideas and customs — dismissed as feudal relics — managed to persist across centuries right into the modern era. In the Chaoshan region of Guangdong province, they are still practiced today. That kind of staying power must come from an inherent validity. Otherwise, history would have discarded them long ago. Starting in the 1950s, we condemned those ideas and customs as feudal refuse — and the result was not the civilized progress everyone expected. Instead, without a roadmap or a destination, the drift gradually led toward destruction.
So people have started to ask: Has freedom been taken too far? Should certain people never have been given a seat at the table? Should we take another look at the traditions our ancestors used effectively for over two thousand years?
Recently, European society has swung sharply to the right. The far right has taken the stage, calling for a return to tradition, the expulsion of illegal immigrants, the abolition of various minority privileges — with an iron fist as the backbone, law as the standard, secular values as the benchmark, and contribution as the measure of worth. After unprincipled permissiveness and every variety of self-destructive madness, Westerners have begun fiercely demanding a return to tradition.
I said this roughly five years ago: learn German. If Europe launches a self-rescue counteroffensive, Germany will be the society with the deepest reserves of strength. When I first started following the AfD it was still very small, and extremely unwelcome in German society. But I was certain it would retrace the trajectory of 1933 — because everything was too similar. How similar? That particular article got deleted by the platform.
Do you remember the very first article? Kick It While It’s Collapsing — it predicted that trade conflict was unavoidable, and declared that things would never return to what they were before, only pulling further apart, forming two rival systems and two opposing camps. And so everything developed exactly as predicted…
That article from five years ago also noted: starting in Europe, traditional political figures and representatives of conservative forces would gradually step back from center stage, pushing forward rootless, influencer-style figures to take the lead — letting them run wild and invert the natural order — all for the purpose of destroying before rebuilding. The public mentality works this way: if you tell ordinary people you want to cut a window in the wall to improve ventilation, they’ll never agree. You have to tear the whole house down. Once they find themselves with nowhere to live, they’ll agree to the window.
The reverse is equally true. It is extremely difficult to get the masses to accept rational principles — you first have to let them break through every boundary, until reality becomes unbearable. Then, when order is rebuilt, no matter how conservative the proposals, they will accept them. The French Revolution was absolutely frenzied — people lived in constant fear, rivers of blood — yet when Napoleon finally rebuilt order, even an emperor was something they could accept.
The reason the weak pursue contradictory goals and behave without any bottom line is shortsightedness — a head full of mush, forever unable to identify what the decisive factors actually are. Once the most competitive and efficient laborers and the conservative forces that hold social resources find common ground in traditional values, social resources and labor efficiency form an alliance brokered by that consensus — labor maximizes efficiency and creates value for those who control social resources, while those who control social resources grant certain privileges to the most competitive laborers, and, backed by the dual legitimacy of traditional consensus and the logic of efficiency, monopolize every channel of advancement.
Every order established by conservatism follows the same pattern: first, natural selection filters out survivors. Second, the winners of the survival competition claim the resources of production and livelihood. Third, the most efficient laborers monopolize the channels of upward mobility. Finally, those who hold resources and control those channels monopolize the power to define right and wrong — that is, they monopolize the power of discourse.