If you want to win votes, propose wealth redistribution. There are always few rich, and few truly happy people, so to the lonely and discontented voter your words will be like a balm for the soul.
Except of course that much like heroin, “once is not enough.” Soon more is needed, and the one-time-fix of borrowing money from those evil rich people becomes a daily deed. And then the money dries up.
Right now, America and Europe are divided between two forces. The pre-1789 rightists want natural selection, where the best rise. The post-1789 leftists want wealth redistribution, so that everyone is accepted regardless of their competence, character or contributions.
When you feel the world has ground you down and done you wrong, you want a golden ticket to acceptance and so this appeals to you. Instead of being forced to prove yourself and make yourself join, society is obligated to bring you into its fold.
For 222 years, and increasingly in the 65 years since the end of the second world war, liberalism has dominated political discourse. Even our conservatives are shades of liberal. But discontent has been growing.
Even before the most recent economic crash, people have been expressing discontent about the direction in which the USA has been going. These are not all the alienated types, either. They’re well-adjusted, successful and distrust our future.
Our own FBI mentioned corruption as a huge problem. Illegal immigration gutted the hospital system in the south. Government ballooned in size, as did regulations, creating a huge protected class of people — a new elite — who benefited from knowing the Byzantine bends of those legal mazes.
The liberals won’t admit it, but this is what wealth redistribution looks like.
We take wealth from the independent and competent, and give it to a group of people we are “morally” obligated to support. The result is a net loss for the competent, and a win for the incompetent, who increase their rate of reproduction to match.
If we want to live in a first-world nation again, we should consider a new kind of wealth redistribution: take it from our new elites, and transfer it to those who actually contribute something and actually are competent.
This method has worked since the dawn of time. Whatever you have, take the best and make more of it, and the next generation will be even better. It is Darwinism in its purest form.
We can do this easily in America:
- Bust unions. Unions are monopolies that force employers to subsidize the incompetent along with the competent. Quality declines as aresult.
- Remove welfare. Job insurance is no problem. But paying people to stay unemployed creates a permanent parasite caste.
- Erase anti-discrimination. HUD, Affirmative action, and equal opportunity “seem” good because they are well-intentioned. Instead they multiply cost and strengthen government.
- Obliterate non-essentials. Our government should have one mission: protect and nurture the nation through its most competent. The anti-drug programs, drug counseling, child protection, health education, diversity, etc. are a drain on that purpose and should be removed.
These are not radical changes, but they all have a single purpose: create a system like nature where the best rise to the top, take more resources than others, and use those resources to make society more productive as a whole.
Our mania for wealth redistribution started with the birth of liberalism in the French Revolution in 1789. The result has been that we pay the incompetent to be incompetent, and take that money from the competent, who then are not able to fix our problems for us.
Instead we should look toward creating truly great outcomes that we could not envision before, and create a new elite based on that ability. Such an action is forward-looking and increases the well-being of everyone.
If we change course now, and re-distribute wealth to those who will do great things with it, we stand a chance of not following other civilizations down the sad path to third-world status. That’s not popular yet, but as we see the grim alternative, it’s growing on us.
The German philosopher Hannah Arendt writes in Tradition and the Modern Age that an unsettling paradox emerges in the modern world’s view of history. If history is a struggle towards a perfect political system, then when that system is achieved history will be complete — and then what will the purpose of mankind be?
The opening sentence of the Communist Manifesto is that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Note that this revolutionary statement is not about society itself, but about its history, and the rewriting of world history becomes the Communist objective. If Marx could persuade mankind to accept that historical narrative, then the establishment of Communism itself would go without saying, for it would be a historical inevitability.
By revaluing labor and violence as problems to be eliminated rather than part of the structure of civilization, Marx sets mankind on the path to rewrite history as a road to perfection. Distaste for gods and heroes of the past and desire to destroy their memory, dishonor towards one’s parents and teachers, and disdain for one’s culture are all encouraged by this philosophy, which teaches that we are moving from darkness into light. We must be “progressive”, accepting the natural progress of society towards this conclusion, or hastening it along.
Neglecting the terrible practical flaws of Communism for a second, Marx might as well have written that the history of society is a struggle between medicine and disease. Obviously we must always fight disease or we shall all perish. But when medicine wins the “war,” and all mankind becomes healthy and immortal, what happens next? People will be perfectly free of struggle, and thus have no goals worth pursuing whatsoever.
To imagine history as a teleological process is to imagine its completion. But this is fallacy, for man acts on the present based on his experience of the past. With the past eliminated there is no future. The end of history is the end of meaning, and imagining that history carries on without you towards its goal means that you imagine your own life to lack meaning.
It is often said that life is already meaningless by those philosophers who insist on pursuing this teleology. However, as long as we have a memory of the past, of our parents and those who came before us, and as long as words have authority to us and we have not been made enemies of our own language by ideologues who denounce it, life will have meaning as well.
And when we ask ourselves how we derive this meaning from our circumstances, we can see in the mystery of our membership in these lineages a spark of greatness, shining through from the past into the future.
Unless you live in a small city or elite suburb, the quality of the public schools around you is so low that you will need to find another method of schooling your children.
This means that you will pay property taxes for a school your kids will never go to, and then pay in addition to that for books and supplies, and then on top of that, will spend your time either homeschooling them or driving them to private school.
And yet there’s no option for you to avoid paying the property taxes, because if that option were available, public schooling would immediately collapse. It’s a form of collective punishment: you pay so that other people’s kids can get schooled and then those kids dumb down the quality of that education.
This is yet another way that civilization itself can be parasitic. As soon as you have more takers than givers, civilization becomes a process of the intelligent and industrious subsidizing the dysfunctional. In the case of schooling, it results in intelligent children being undereducated and bored.
During the last sixty years, American public schooling has gone from being a worthwhile education to being a jail sentence. Kids memorize material instead of learning to think because not every student has the raw capacity to think. They receive more political indoctrination than real knowledge.
Then when they go off to college, the process begins anew. More political dogma. More dumbing down the class for Muffy with her rich daddy or the various special interest groups who need only be of that group, not necessarily competent.
The result is that we pay a huge amount of money for a vastly ineffective education. No one would mind the cost if the education were worth it, but it’s barely better than leaving the kids at home with the books and paying them $20 to take a comprehensive test each month.
For these reasons, people are yanking their kids out of the public school system at a record rate. This is further dooming the public school system, since this removes the smart kids who otherwise kept it from falling into the true abyss of a total lack of intellectual curiosity.
You need to have one spouse stay at home to do that. It doesn’t matter which spouse, but the most stable kids seem to come from homes like this. This is yet another way that America is divided by the culture wars. The smart homes are two-parent, one-worker, homeschooled and generally conservative.
Originally, American public schooling was perceived as necessary to keep our nation literate. Now, between the parasitic parents, leechlike teacher’s unions, political dogma, affirmative action lowered standards, and general refusal to make education competitive (which offends people), an American high school education is worthless.
This kicks everyone up to the collegiate level to prove they can write a coherent sentence, which in turn makes college degrees worthless, even from top schools. This is then forcing people in droves into graduate programs, which are getting dumbed down in turn.
It never ends unless we end it. Doubtless there will be screaming, but eventually, we will have to simply cancel public education. This will return education to its competitive state, and give our kids more to look forward to than a four-year sentence with no hope for parole.
The internet is infuriating because it is not reality. The internet is pure symbol. As a result, no one can tell you’re a dog on the internet, or if you’re pushing a dog of an argument.
In particular, it is popular for random people to follow you around and insist that you’re wrong. “It’s logical,” they tell you, but they are not speaking of reality. They have taken a few factors, cherry-picked data, and spun it to show you a dollhouse world of simple “truths” that do not exist in reality.
These people are infected with a mental virus called liberalism that has suspended their logical thought process. Like other cults, it provides them with a clear definition of who’s OK and who’s not, and offers handy explanations for just about any situation.
They frequently accuse others of hypocrisy for not accepting this tiny little world as a substitute for the large and broad world that we must actually survive in. Let’s take a look at some frequent liberal accusations of hypocrisy and how true they are.
Typical liberal dogma is that conservatives exist in a binary world where we exclude anyone who does not agree with us and demonize them. Here’s an example from the comments:
Conveniently, you have branded anyone who exists outside the parameters of your dichotomous 1-dimensional left/right political spectrum as just another “one of them”. This is the fundamental defense system of all belief systems against hostile information/truth;
if not Jihadist = ‘infidel/heathen’.
if not Pro-PC = ‘fascist/bigot’.
if not conservative = ‘leftist/liberal’.
What the liberal fails to mention is that there’s a more powerful binary going on in liberalism. “If not liberal, is bad.” The liberal thinks that because he does not explicitly call his foes “conservatives,” it does not appear that he is excluding them.
The liberal dichotomy is based on inclusion. They don’t need to call their enemies names. By implication, liberalism is open-minded, “intellectual” and correct, which makes anyone who opposes it close-minded, dim-witted and wrong.
In the liberal lexicon, if you think poverty has a cause, you are a bigot. It’s actually a tale of two causes. Liberal dogma states that poverty is caused by external factors, usually pre-existing poverty or large corporations, or the rich, or something.
Conservatives tend to look at trillions spent on public schooling, public assistance, equal opportunity programs, civil rights and other factors and take a more sanguine look: if you’re impoverished, it’s because you’re either clueless or cannot apply yourself.
We all acknowledge that there are some exceptions to any rule, but the liberals want us to believe the rule that all are exceptions.
Liberals say poverty has an external cause, and that anyone who disputes this is a nasty mean person. Conservatives suggest poverty has an internal cause, with a few exceptions. Liberals call conservatives bigots for suggesting that our choices in life lead to results.
Nowhere is liberal hypocrisy more evident than on the issue of race. The liberal parties after all thrive on dissent, which encourages a lack of national unity and thus a focus on the individual and what it wants to demand from society. And more tellingly, minorities and immigrants constitute the left’s new voting bloc, since those groups overwhelmingly vote leftist.
In the liberal view, demanding that every country on earth open its borders so that humanity becomes one single ethnic group worldwide is not bigotry. Even though this amounts to genocide of existing ethnic groups, liberals see it as enlightened.
If you oppose the great liberal quest to turn us into a homogenized single ethnic group, you’re a racist. Liberals who want to destroy your race are not. Is that clear, Comrade Citizen?
Why is liberalism this insane?
Liberalism is fundamentally a social trope, not a logical one. It is concerned with appearance, not consequences beyond the immediate and tangible. Its point of view is how you appear to other individuals in a social setting. Beyond that, it considers nothing, especially the consequences of its ideology.
The ultimate goal of liberalism is to paint itself as exceptional, and to construe any opposing viewpoint as “like everyone else,” or unexceptional and prone to normal human failings. The liberal cult thrives because it makes its members feel smarter and more enlightened than you.
This is why liberalism is effective at mobilizing large numbers of people from the discontented, failed, alienated, confused, or merely socially promiscuous among us. This is also why it is equally effective at destroying civilization by forcing it to distance itself from reality.
The conservative view is that liberalism is one of many mental pitfalls in life, like alcoholism, cults, self-pity or denial. The liberal view is that only liberalism is true and that everything else is error. Who actually is the hypocrite here?
In a society where page views and sound bites count more than results, having any political viewpoint is difficult. No matter which political angle, someone in the crowd will dislike you for it.
People try to avoid this question by saying something like, “There’s no real difference between the Republicans and Democrats, because they work for the same people.” This is an apolitical view, because it endorses a lack of action.
Conveniently, that lack of action — which we might call pluralism — is the foundation of liberalism. All are equal; tolerate everything; since that in turn creates new problems, we need a strong centralized political (not cultural or social) force to Nanny State us into accepting it.
In other words, by not making a choice, you made a choice.
While being apolitical seems like a good plan when expounded upon at your favorite bar, it will destroy your spirit. It convinces you to stop working toward a goal, and instead to chase after false targets while ignoring the one convenient avenue for change, which is using democratic means.
Like saying, “I hate/love everyone equally,” this statement amounts to blaming your lack of choice on something a small group of others have done. You have said that they are both the problem, and that which prevents a solution.
This is parallel to what neo-Nazis do when they claim Jews control the earth and the only way to fix our problems is to wage war against the Jew, or what liberals do when they claim “the rich” or “the banksters” control our civilization. You have placed control of your future in the hands of your enemies.
A more intelligent way of handling this is to pick a direct solution. Your enemy is not the solution, nor is smiting your enemy the solution. Your enemy is the opposition because she stands in the way of what you want to achieve, which is your goal. Go for the goal instead.
This process is separate from diagnosis. When we say that liberalism is a mental delusion that destroys civilizations, our message is clear: avoid liberalism, and do find another way to rule ourselves. We are not saying that liberalism controls the earth. We are saying we need another option besides liberalism.
When people declare that both parties are the same, they tend to advocate two types of giving up. The first is to shrug and be “apolitical,” giving up any say in how we are ruled. The second type of giving up is to set an impossible goal, like inventing some third party that magically unites left and right.
As with most useless things, these apolitical options are popular because they let individuals off the hook. With a single statement, you have explained your lack of concern for politics, so it’s back to buying products, producing personal drama, and other activities of as much importance as a squirrel preening itself. Apoliticism is an excuse, not a goal or a diagnosis.
Instead of going down this path to hopelessness, realize that change is in your hands. If even a relatively small percentage of the population agrees on a political idea, it happens. When even 2% of the country form a political movement, they get results.
The real reason nothing happens is that very few people agree on much of anything, and so they make the polite/sociable decision to agree to disagree, which means that nothing happens. The result is that the status quo keeps on trucking, adding more government control and more commercial corruption to our society.
Our Republican party in this country is blighted. Most of the people there are essentially liberals. This makes them very close to Democrats.
However, they’re only in control because no one else has stepped forward to volunteer or seek employment in politics. If those people did, they would replace the liberal conservatives with actual conservatives and the party would take a different direction.
It’s tempting to throw up our hands and give up. But that is exactly what those who would destroy our society want you to do, and they’ll hide that end result in many forms in order to trick you into buying into it.
This is a continuation of our interview with John Morgan, Editor-in-Chief of Arktos. This innovative firm publishes books about alternatives to modernity, including traditionalist, new right and ecofuturist literature. John was kind enough to take the time answer a lengthy interview, of which part II of IV is presented here.
Arktos has branched out from strictly analytical books toward more of a literary regimen, as exemplified in Ernst von Salomon’s It Cannot Be Stormed. Any thoughts of going further in this direction, like reprinting Knut Hamsun books or Jack London titles?
Yes, we very much want to publish more literature in the future. In addition to It Cannot Be Stormed, which is actually a work of the Conservative Revolution, we also published the novel, The Saga of the Aryan Race, by the Parsi Zoroastrian author Porus Homi Havewala. It’s a history of Zoroastrianism’s Aryan origins told in the form of a mythological story. Over the summer we published another novel, The Owls of Afrasiab, by the Swedish author Lars Holger Holm, which is about the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims in 1453. Right now we are finishing up the novel Morning Crafts by Tito Perdue, which is about a young boy who is lured away to a secret school in the forest in which the teachers are desperately trying to preserve a remnant of Western civilization. I’m certain we will continue to do more literature, both new works and classics. We don’t have any specific plans for Hamsun or London at the moment. All of their major works are already in print, but it might be possible to print some of their more obscure works.
You seem to publish a lot of books in Scandinavian languages. Do you have more readers there, or is it a focus area for other reasons?
The reason why the Scandinavian market is important to us is because all of our staff, apart from myself, are of Scandinavian origin, especially Sweden, so producing works specifically for that area has always been a priority for us. However, it is definitely the case that there is a growing backlash happening against the extreme liberalism that has held sway there for decades, so there is a lot of interest in our ideas there.
Out of the last 20 books I’ve read, the Arktos titles have had the best editing – the most consistent use of punctuation and chapter division, the fewest errors, the most natural-sounding translations. What’s the secret of your editing team?
As Editor-in-Chief, thanks for the compliment! There’s no secret: it’s just hours and hours of hard work! I subject any book that I work on to a grueling editing process (I tend to be obsessive), and then most of our books are reviewed by a second editor/proofreader. Daniel Friberg, who does the layout of our interiors, always does an outstanding job, and we also have had several excellent graphic designers do our covers. My personal favorite among our covers to date is the one for Archeofuturism, which looks like the cover of a Kraftwerk album. We enforce very high standards. There’s nothing more embarrassing than a poorly-produced book. It’s always frustrating for me to buy a book and then find myself counting the errors on each page. It’s an all-too-common occurrence these days, even with the major publishers, which I blame on the proliferation of word processing and spell-check, not to mention the pressure of short deadlines and simple laziness. As for the true Right, we have the best ideas, and thus they deserve to be made available in high-quality books. When I edit a book, I try to bring it up to the level that I expect when I read a book. Anything less would drive me crazy.
Before long I realized that my own ideas about society and life in general were quite at variance with what my professors and fellow students were advocating, and I started reading to explore alternatives. I was attracted by what I read about the old Right-wing tradition in Europe, although I never believed that they completely represented my own views, nor could I see that they were practicable in today’s reality.
When did you, personally, first become interested in the topics you publish? Did you start out along these lines, or arrive there gradually?
I suppose I was quite conventional until my undergraduate years, when I was blessed by the resources of the University of Michigan library, which is quite vast. Before long I realized that my own ideas about society and life in general were quite at variance with what my professors and fellow students were advocating, and I started reading to explore alternatives. I was attracted by what I read about the old Right-wing tradition in Europe, although I never believed that they completely represented my own views, nor could I see that they were practicable in today’s reality. A while later, I started to come across references to the German Conservative Revolution of the 1920s and the European New Right, and I could tell they came much closer, even though there was precious little available about them in English at that time. Although it was reading Evola and his mentor, René Guénon, which really put the fire into me and made me realize that there really is a different way of conceiving of society and our place in it, and that it, and not the modern world, is actually the norm. As Guénon wrote, modernity is really just an aberration. All told, it took about 15 years for my thinking to develop to its current point. And I’m sure it will never stop developing entirely, even though I feel that I have a firm grasp on the essentials now.
Do you think your message appeals to any generations more than others? In particular, I’ve noticed that Generation X-Y seem to be the ones most concerned about the future.
Yes, it definitely does seem that younger people, especially those under 30, are the most responsive to our message, although I’ve met sincere individuals who are interested in these ideas from all ages. Still, I think they have an even greater urgency for young people, since those born in recent decades in Western countries have been the first in a long time to have to confront the reality that their homelands are growing worse rather than better. I myself, at 38, qualify as a Gen-Xer. I vividly remember my youth in 1980s New York, when it seemed that crime was on the verge of spiraling out of control, and that there was a decent chance that I would be dead before the age of 30 in a nuclear war or from being fried to death when the ozone layer disappeared. Fortunately, none of those things came to pass, but it lent an apocalyptic tone to my thoughts on the future that has never gone away, and I think a lot of people my age or younger have it as well, to a certain extent. I think it was the same kind of phenomenon that led some German intellectuals, who had lived through the apocalypse of the First World War and the following economic collapse, to develop the Conservative Revolution, which was in turn the predecessor of the New Right.
If many of the books you publish are correct, modern society as we know it is based on some erroneous assumptions. Is that true? What is wrong with modern society? Do we see any symptoms of that?
Yes, we’ve published books from many different perspectives, but most of them would agree that civilization has been on the wrong track for a while now. Speaking for myself, I think it was the disenchantment of the world brought on by secularization and egalitarianism that has led us to our current predicament, bringing about an ever-increasing materialism that is still in the process of driving the world to insanity. No genuine culture is possible without the sacred. When you believe that individuals and the world itself are merely chemical concoctions operating at random, selfishness, short-sightedness, disregard for tradition and cultural boundaries, leveling (both cultural and social), physical and moral weakness, and violence are an inevitable result. We can see the effects of this in any country in the world today. All we have now is chaos. America today is like a leaky boat that is springing more and more holes, and its leaders, already knee-deep in water, are hurriedly rushing about, trying to plug the holes before the whole vessel sinks. The solution is to abandon ship and go build a new one according to a better design, but few people want to go to all that trouble since it will entail a lot of work and a fresh vision. Nobody is thinking further into the future than the next election. That’s no way to run a nation. The way to “save the world” isn’t merely through a different economic policy or by keeping illegal immigrants out, even though those things might be part of it. A complete transformation of society, starting with the individual and his worldview, must take place first. Before we can achieve anything that can last, we must get our souls back, and reconnect with the transcendent.
Parts I II III IV.
I took a walk this afternoon through one of the largest Meccas of American consumerism. They talk about how bad the economy is, but the place was filled with people, from the parking lot on in, caught up in the bustle. Filled with people, and filled with an electric crackle of stress. False excitement, false smiles masking hurry and clenched jaws. It’s a feeding frenzy, all of them marching to the beat of The Little Drummer Boy coming through loud and clear on the wildly expensive sound system.
The Christmas rush is the most obvious example possible of American consumerism. It is Pavlovian conditioning in action. Do these people really need new red sweaters with reindeer on them? Will the people they are buying things for actually like the gifts when they are unwrapped? Are the recipients of the gifts in any sort of need? Did the recipients not return the favor, themselves participating in the consumerist orgy? Gift exchanges are not a zero sum game: there is a net drain, a sink. The sellers of the unneeded items profit from the exchange.
The American populace is making decisions based on notional constructs, or theories of what might be and not what is. Fake bonhomie. The forced “Merry Christmas.” The strident, iron marching beat of The Little Drummer Boy calling the cadence. The urge to work hard to make money to buy things that aren’t needed.
In the crowded grocery store, someone is struggling with too many two-liter bottles of diet soda. The soda is on special which means that the person has to buy a lot of them in order to reap the greatest benefit possible.
At the cash register, the person (the person is me) is fumbling for money. I realize, reaching for my wallet, that the soda is devoid of nutritional value. Then I realize that the money is, increasingly, devoid of real financial value.
I have worked hard for this worthless money, and I am spending it on something worthless except for its function as a caffeine source that will allow me to work harder.
Then it occurs to me that my work is also utterly devoid of any real value. Something is deeply wrong with this picture.
The increasing frenzy of the Winter Buying Season, from Black Friday onward, the supposed great importance of it, makes me realize just how out-of-whack our priorities have become. Advertising produces an artificial need for artificial products which we then buy with valueless money.
I keep returning to the theme of notional constructs: the Great American Ponzi Scheme.
There is a field of military theory that has to do with decision loops, known in the jargon as OODA Loops, an acronym for Observe, Orient, Decide and Attack. The cycle is repeated again and again: observe the situation, realize one’s position therein, decide on a course of action, then act. Each iteration of the cycle takes time.
Decision loop warfare — warfare that is conscious of the OODA loop — attempts to optimize it for friendlies and discombobulate it for the enemy.
One way of throwing the enemy out-of-whack is to cause him to act on false information. Notional constructs. Inflatable tanks, false radio signals, entire false invasion fronts.
Here at the tail end of the American Dream, the economic decision loop is driven by pervasive advertisements– what is it now, fifteen minutes for every hour of meaningless popcorn entertainment on television? Consumer spending is king. The Little Drummer Boy is king of consumer spending.
We have lost sight of what matters. We are operating on notional information, a false, Matrix-like construct of what we have told ourselves is important. Consumer spending. 3D televisions on which to watch our pointless entrainment. Worthless gimmicks for us to spend our worthless money on, money we earned in jobs that don’t actually produce anything or do anything useful. Where is the value coming from?
With each iteration of the cycle, the economy becomes more and more out-of-whack. The bubbles and crashes become more intense, like the highs and depressions of a stock broker addicted to cocaine. As anyone who has been around stock brokers will tell you, this similarity is in no way coincidental.
Out in the woods, in Michigan and Montana and Wyoming, something very different is happening. Out in those areas on the map where you can actually drive for a hundred miles without passing a McDonalds, there are some people whose decision loops are operating on other, different information. Some of their constructs are notional as well: the Great Race War, Identity Politics. Religion. Some of them are knowingly grasping notional constructs in order to cement group unity, a concept I have difficulty getting my mind around. They knowingly and intentionally compartmentalize away their rationality in favor of belief systems that, the story goes, will Save the Race. Or Save Christianity. Or Save the Country. Perhaps they’re wrong. Perhaps not.
One way or another, while I drink my nutritionless soda that I bought with the valueless money that I earned while doing work that didn’t produce anything, these people, groups really, are buying up land. They’re doing other things that seem quaint and queer and oddly threatening to the urban dweller, when the urbanite becomes aware of them at all.
These people have returned to Folk. They have returned to the country, and they live close to the land. Like good Marxists (though they are certainly not Marxists) they have seized control of the means of production that govern their own lives. Solar and wind power generators are going up in windswept farms. Some of their money is going to food. Their news doesn’t come from urbanite peer-to-peer media but from AM radio. It is largely agenda-driven and suspect in that regard, but the agenda is very different indeed from that of the urbanites.
Urban populations are skyrocketing. The urbanites are absolutely dependent on the rural dwellers for everything– now food, soon power. The rural and urban worldviews are increasingly anathema to each other.
What will happen when the Great American Ponzi Scheme collapses? Where will the oil come from? Where will the food come from?
The rural dwellers, notional as their constructs may be, have found something nutritious in their return to the land and their embrace of family. Some of the urban dwellers have begun to filter out of the cities to join them, because of various tribal affinities and because conditions in the cities have just barely begun to be untenable. People are starting to get the funny little niggling feeling that there is something rotten somewhere. The feeling that this situation– really a collection of many situations– is unsustainable. It can’t last. Like a faultline experiencing tremors under increasing stress, like mountain snow waiting for an avalanche, something is bound to give, and in a vast chain of events, the system will settle violently into a new equilibrium. There is a field of science that studies these cascade failures. It’s called Catastrophe Theory.
What the new equilibrium will consist of is anybody’s guess.
At the Consumer Mecca, things will have reached a feverish crescendo as the stores begin to close down for the evening. People will be running from one store to another, hoping to find that last pointless, useless piece of mass-market trash to throw their money away on for the Great Net-Negative Gift Exchange. What does it matter? Their jobs are meaningless anyway and they don’t do any real work. The skins of their palms are soft, uncalloused. Their decision loop is highly abstracted. They live in their notional world and they make decisions based on the Consumerist Media Construct. Really, they are like sleep-walkers, sometimes complaining when a breath of cold air enters the dream.
Out in the sticks, at the very same time, there are people slopping hogs. Connected to day-to-day reality and to their food supply, they are very far from the urban liberal dream. Their hard, leathery hands are gutting deer that they have shot themselves. Shot with rifles. Later, after chopping wood, after supper but before sitting down next to the fireplace with their families, they will clean those rifles. They will lovingly polish them with soft cloths. Then they will put them away.
OK, don’t stop your cryin’. I don’t care if you cry. Crying can be good, after all. It cleans out the eye sockets and soothes the driest of eyes. You’re left with red and bloodshot eyes, but that’s what attracts the babes, these days: men exploring their sensitive, feminine sides, etc…
But it doesn’t, really. Women think they want non-threatening, soppy, weepy, feminine men. And so men become non-threatening, soppy, weepy and feminine in order to get laid. And then they don’t get laid. Instead they get to hear women calling them “needy”, as well as being non-threatening, soppy, weepy and feminine. Which is not the desired result, and leaves little to be desired.
So what have we got here?
Women dissatisfied with men, the way men are. Men dissatisfied with themselves, the way they are. Women dissatisfied with the results of their dissatisfaction, and men dissatisfied, period.
Well, that’s certainly better than the old way, isn’t it? It’s modern, and progressive, and that’s just gotta be good. Everyone dissatisfied. Everyone no longer what they were, in favour of what they have become, through the evolution of dissatisfaction.
So we find ourselves dissatisfied with each other, and with ourselves, while others feel nothing but dissatisfaction with us, and with themselves. Grrr! Dammit! No wonder it’s become so impossible to have any kind of productive, calm, reasonable interaction with anybody else.
But once in a while, and more often lately, than previously, I find myself running into people who are taking their first, tentative steps toward second-adulthood. Or first-adulthood, if all they have ever known is PC dogma. The racist peeks out. The pugilist. The heterosexual. The would-be Christian. In short: those troll-like neanderthal, hate-filled, bigoted people that everybody loathes, including themselves, and wishes for the destruction of, on the happy revolutionary road towards The Great Uniform Utopia.
Tentative, it is. A small, quavering voice, quiveringly venturing not-very-racist feelers, to gauge the result upon the possibly-threatening listener. And when the Wrath Of No-God fails to descend upon them, slightly more robust not-really-very-bigoted opinions slightly-less-timidly follow.
I smile at these mini-events. And engage gleefully.
“What? You’re not racist? What’s the matter with you? Everybody is racist!”
“You’re a bit anti-islamic? What? Why only a bit? What’s wrong with you?”
“You aren’t entirely comfortable with public displays of sodomy? What’s your problem? If others can openly offend you, then you can openly offend them!”
I used to weep for the past, which was not all that glorious, and not all that great.
Because, as flawed as it was, it was nowhere near as flawed as the present.
Then I got sick of weeping and became enraged, instead.
Then I grew weary of being so often enraged, and grew philosophical, instead.
Then I grew scornful of philosophy, and fell asleep, instead.
And dreamed a better dream.
The dream became the present, and here I am inhabiting it.
And I’m still not dead, stabbed, shot, or imprisoned.
I still have a wife, a home, masses of animals, birds, trees, flowers, vegetables and interests. Golly! I never expected any of this!
Stop yer cryin’!
Just be what you are, where you are, and let the rest of them self-immolate.
There’s nothing you can do to help. Nothing you can do to stop it.
Help yourself, stop yourself, instead, and when you’ve successfully done that, you may be mildly shocked to discover, that you’ve succeeded in doing the impossible:
You’ve done your part, the part nobody but you could do.
You’ve become satisfied, within a world of dissatisfaction, without really even trying. And, best of all: whether you had planned on it, or not, the others – or some of them, anyway – will slowly begin to notice…
The difference between readers will never cease to be fascinating. Like choice of car, cigarette, where you buy your house, what you feed your kids, and how you keep your desk organized, it reveals the conscious decisions of the individual.
Although this outlook may seem similar to the consumerist idea that you can buy a bunch of neat random things and be “unique” by “expressing yourself,” that symptom is actually the reverse of what is described in the paragraph above. In that view, you buy objects to fit your needs, and that reveals what you value.
In the false consumer variant, you buy objects to make yourself appear as if you have certain needs and values, and hope to construct yourself from those. It’s like painting a picture of what you wish you were like, and hiding behind it when introduced to people. It is similar to what an actor does, creating an ersatz persona.
Through the bookshops in your city, and the bookshelves of the people who live in it, you can see this difference in action.
Start in the outer suburbs. These are people who forsake convenience in the city for having a nice place to raise kids. Lower crime, better schools, more space, fewer cars. Out here, you’re at first tempted to mock what they read. It’s Oprah book club stuff, on the surface. Trendy novels and dumb self-help books. A lot of contemporary Conservative literature with covers in red-white-blue only.
Skip that mess, then. Go into the city. Find a trendy urban neighborhood. Look at what people are reading there. On the surface, it’s more interesting. These are the books from the New York Times book list, the recommendations of Arts & Letters Daily, and the kind of hip stuff you see “intellectuals” talk about: Jared Diamond, Malcolm Gladwell, Michio Kaku, Howard Zinn, and some very nuanced novels.
Now compare the two by going under the skin. The outer suburbs have much bigger libraries. These libraries are actually more diverse in topic. They have all the crowd-pleasers (Stephen King, Ann Coulter, Lee Childs) but underneath that, there’s actually a huge variety of books on very specific topics. These are more like what you would find in a research library.
In the city, all of the books tend to be of the same type. For every five year cycle, there are about thirty books that urban pundits agree are profound. These are there in abundance. There is not much deviation from this list. It is almost as if everyone has the same bookshelf. They’re programming themselves with the same inputs.
The difference between surface and underlying structure is profound. In the suburbs, the surface is garbage, but underneath you see an intellectual life based on wide variety of topic area. In the city, the surface is shiny and provocative, but underneath you see very little actual dedication to learning. It’s more of a social circle, confirming its own opinions through the views of others.
Whenever people speak of “intellectuals,” you can use this simple litmus test. Are they explorers, or a group of people buzzing together with a hive-mind based on mutual agreement to what we could call social dogma? Our intellectuals today are the latter, which explains why they are always surprised by developments in reality that did not read the same thirty books as they did.
Every generation and every town has one: the slightly bedraggled person who camps out on a street corner with a sign proclaiming “The End is Near.” We’ve become accustomed to them so that they fade into background noise much like our grandparents telling us that things were better in the good ol’ days.
But over the past decade, a new thought has entered our collective consciousness, which is that decay may come slowly, and if so, every doomsayer has been correct — just early. With that thought comes the question, “Where should we go next?” After all, the last century burned out fascism, nationalism, communism and theocracy, and the century before seemed to finish the work of the century before it in shattering aristocracy and the older order. What’s left?
As more people turn toward this question, a new type of publisher has emerged that focuses on different types of social order, some ancient and some futuristic. At the forefront of this new type is Arktos, a publishing firm known for its high-quality imprints of traditionalist, ecofuturist and transcending modernity texts. We were fortunate to have John Morgan, Editor-in-Chief of Arktos, agree to an interview with us.
Arktos birthed itself from Integral Tradition Publishing, and now seems to me to be the foremost alternative right, traditionalist, perennialist and New Right publisher in existence. Can you tell us a bit about the goals, history and methods of Arktos?
Thanks so much for the compliment! It’s always good for morale for us here in India when people give us such votes of confidence.
First, the history. ITP was founded in December 2006 by myself and some friends with the intention of becoming the pre-eminent publisher and distributor of traditionalist and radical/anti-modernist literature. We were always very ambitious, but all of us were working other full-time jobs, and we didn’t have very much money at our disposal, so we could only get out one or two publications per year. It was the decision to open an office in India in 2009 that really turned things around, since those of us who came to work here could actually afford to live on what the company was making and thus work full-time on ITP. Towards the end of 2009, we found out that some Swedish friends of ours were planning a project very similar to our own, and we concluded that it was a better use of our resources to just combine forces, and the resulting product was a completely new venture: Arktos. We’re still very small, but with the additional manpower and money we’ve been able to bring a lot of projects to fruition that we could only dream about in the ITP days.
Our goals are stated on the “About Us” section of our Web site (www.arktos.com), although they are quite general. Arktos does not have a specific ideology or point-of-view that it advocates, even though there are certain themes which are of concern to us. We’ve published a number of European New Right titles, for example, but we don’t see ourselves strictly as a New Right publisher. When I’ve tried to boil down our interests, the best I’ve come up with is “alternatives to modernity.” All of our books in some way seek to convey alternative ways of looking at life or civilization itself. So far we’ve published works on politics, philosophy, spirituality/traditionalism, radical environmentalism, and fiction. I’m sure we will continue to publish works in all these areas, and also expand into new ones.
You’ve unleashed English translations of many of the true classics of the New Right movement. Do you think there’s a large audience in English-speakers, such as in the UK or USA, or is English a kind of lingua franca that we all speak because we use the internet and watch too much American TV?
I certainly hope there are. We’ve had good sales of our Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye titles so far, but they haven’t exactly been flying off the shelves as we’d hoped. I was hopeful that we might see thousands of copies sold right away, in the belief that there were a lot of people like me who had spent years grumbling about how little New Right material had been available in English previously. I’m convinced that there are a lot more potential readers out there, and that we just need to find a way to reach them and make them aware of this material. But orders for the books continue to come in, and we have many more translations planned, so I’m hopeful that we will gradually get to that point.
As for the possibilities in English, it’s unquestionable that English has now become the global language, at least among the educated elites across the world. I find it a bit ironic that we’re exploiting this reality in Arktos, since one of the fundamental aspects of the New Right is its opposition to American cultural imperialism, of which the current proliferation of English is a part. But it’s a fact, so we might as well work with it. We certainly do see a lot of sales to customers in countries that are not primarily English-speaking, simply because our books have not been made available in their native languages. Although I do think there is a lot of interest in Arktos in English-speaking countries as well, simply because the sorts of ideas propagated in our books are coming from completely new perspectives for us. I don’t think most people would dispute that the political, cultural and spiritual traditions which have dominated the English-speaking world for centuries have been appearing quite threadbare in recent decades. Both the United States and the United Kingdom are founded on English political and philosophical assumptions that have gone unquestioned for a long time. The New Right texts are coming out of French, and to a lesser extent German and other Continental traditions that are a breath of fresh air. Previously, these sorts of ideas were only the province of academic specialists in political theory, but now we are making them available for anyone to consider.
When I’ve tried to boil down our interests, the best I’ve come up with is “alternatives to modernity.” All of our books in some way seek to convey alternative ways of looking at life or civilization itself.
How many titles does Arktos publish in a year, and how do you choose them?
We try to publish at least two or three new titles per month, although we’ve fallen short of that goal recently because all of us spent much of the summer travelling and attending conferences, but we’re working to get caught up now. We choose books based in part on our own interests (since we would definitely all be a part of Arktos’ audience if we weren’t working for it), as well as in terms of what we feel is most needed or what people would like to see in print. Plus we’re always getting submissions from authors, several of which we’ve already published. Both Andrew Fraser’s The WASP Question and Kerry Bolton’s Revolution from Above were the result of unsolicited submissions.
Why publishing? It seems the publishing industry is in disarray, although many suggest niche publications (like what Arktos does) are the way of the future. Did you consider other forms of action?
The world of publishing is undergoing changes on a scale unseen since Gutenberg, but I don’t think publishing is going away. I firmly believe that there will always be books – and paper books among them – as long as there is some form of human civilization. It is definitely true that recent developments have created many new opportunities for small publishers than have ever existed before. Arktos wouldn’t exist were it not for the blessings of print-on-demand and the Internet. And I’m very pleased to see the plethora of publishers with goals similar to Arktos that have sprung up in recent years: Counter-Currents, Wermod & Wermod, Finis Mundi, Sophia Perennis, Primordial Traditions, and Black Front Press, to name but a few. When I’ve spoken to people who’ve travelled in our circles for decades, they describe how they used to have to make do with poor-quality photocopies of long out-of-print books or typewritten manuscripts. Now, thanks to the growth of small publishing, we have an entire universe of publishers that are producing professional-quality books that can stand alongside those of the big names. And I think that’s terrific. Ideas are the building blocks of change, and without a rich intellectual and cultural foundation, which can only be found in books, Western civilization will never be able to break out of its present morass. Other forms of action will be needed sooner or later, but we have to have a solid conception of where we want to go first, and books are still the best way to do that.
Parts I II III IV.