The implication is clear – which is that no constructive change is possible until after there is an ‘us’, as well as a ‘them’. We first need to undo the corruption of spirit which pervades almost everybody in The West. We need to make an ‘us’.
We don’t need to undo Leftism in everyone all at once (which is anyway impossible) – but there does need to be a start made; there needs to be a substantial number and proportion of people, a cohesive group, who actually have repented and reformed themselves sufficiently; who have identified their own key errors and sins, and repented them; there needs to be a group of (more or less) spiritually enlightened people.
…This is why I keep banging-on about the absolute necessity for Spiritual Awakening – and that this must come first. It must come first because if it does not come, then we will just be having Left-versus-Left office politics, and Establishment infighting – jostling for power to impose various rival brands of Leftism.
Looking at this from a more abstract level, what we need is a sense of Us and a will to do what is excellent, instead of what merely accommodates human feelings.
Spiritual outlook is undeniably part of this, but before on can undertake a quest to understand metaphysics, there must be a will toward survival and with it, a desire to understand life as a pleasure, not an obligation.
In the view of life as pleasure, one sees obligations — food, shelter, water — as “means to an end,” with that end being the experience of life. Similarly, one wants to have the best experience of life possible, which requires a drive beyond utilitarianism, such as an impulse to excellence.
From this moment, one finds oneself asking the question: What would ideal life look like for me?
Our immediate answer involves peace, security, plenty and other items of material comfort. Let that one float in the air for a few moments, and doubt starts to appear. We already have those things, and they are not difficult to achieve.
Out of the silence comes a more nuanced and disturbing answer: we also want greatness, and with it, some prospect of adventure. The cozy suburbs are only meaningful once you have seen the chaos of the world and fought with it. We need mountains to climb, enemies to vanquish, and things to fix and improve.
Think of the people you know. How many of them go nuts for old military movies, Westerns and re-runs of This Old House? People need challenges. They need something to rise to. They crave difficult tasks, even if — at first mention — they claim otherwise.
The spiritual revolution of the West begins with the realization that we need an Us based not on the backward-looking notion of “doing good” as the Left describes it, but on aspiration and soaring to new heights.
That in turn begins with identity. Nationalism serves a cultural and spiritual role through identity: creating existential framing and self-esteem. From that we can say, “We, all of us, like to do these sorts of things.”
A nation or civilization is at heart nothing more than a collaboration. People come together on shared values and mutual ability to contribute toward making them happen. When the West lost its purpose, this declined.
The reason the West lost its purpose is simple: we succeeded at our first purpose, which was to form a functional civilization. After that, we fell into boredom and depression. Then the decay came, and it has been gaining on us for a thousand years.
Now, as the Kali-Yuga ends, people are again discovering purpose. With that, they rediscover life is a pleasure, the need for nationalism, and the utility of spirituality. Only together as a bundle do these things have meaning.
The long years of horror are ending. Modernity is a horror not because of technology but because in the absence of purpose, we filled the void with our own egos. “Me first” became more important than excellence, beauty and goodness. To hide that fact, we created ersatz versions of those things through Leftism.
But for this renewal to continue, it requires our effort. As Charlton points out, it starts with a conception of Us that includes positive, forward logic. In this thought scheme, we think of what we desire as ideal and make it happen, instead of reacting to what exists now and using it as an argument for what we should do.
This is a fundamental revolution in thought the likes of which has not been seen for many centuries. It will unnerve most people. Now is the time for all of us to unite on this simple concept, and push it further toward existence.
Watching The Return Of The King (Part III of the Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, which includes also The Fellowship Of The Ring and The Two Towers) again, a detail previously buried rose to the surface: the zombie-like and automatonesque behavior of the citizens of Gondor in the absence of a king.
Not surprisingly, the script — adapted not just from J.R.R. Tolkien’s trilogy but his other books, letters and public statements — gives some hints as to why. From a short speech by warrior-wizard Gandalf:
They guard it because they have hope. A faint and fading hope that one day a king will come and this city will be as it once was, before it fell into decay. The old wisdom borne out of the West was forsaken. Kings made tombs more splendid than the houses of the living and counted the omens of their descent dearer than the names of their sons. Childless lords sat in aged halls musing on pedantry, or in high cold towers asking questions of the stars. And so the people of Gondor fell into ruin. The line of kings failed. The white tree withered. The rule of Gondor was given over to lesser men.
Keep in mind that this comes from a series that could well be summarized as “Marginalized reactionaries battle domestic cucks and foreign immigrants to restore the monarchy and unite the race of (European) men.” Like the Old Testament, the Bhagavad-Gita and The Odyssey, this movie is about a race war.
Its spin on that story is that several races ally to defeat the mixed-race empire (orcs, goblins, and the new fusion Uruk-Hai) of Mordor, which suspiciously resembles a cross between the regimes of Genghis Khan, New York, the Bolsheviks and the Napoleon. Mordor has no goal except for power, and it seduces its warriors by promising them an end to the reign of man, and an age for the previously oppressed races.
In addition, because Tolkien is not a one-dimensional propagandist and therefore most likely belongs in the realm of literature despite his sometimes abysmally rambling scenes, the story is a meditation on the nature of ego. The ring allows the ego to rise above its position through its promise of pure power and the ability to hide past acts.
This aspect of the ring calls to mind another story from the classics, namely the tale from Plato of the ring of the Lydian Gyges which allows a bad man to hide his bad deeds and show off his good ones so he appears “good.” The ring is equality: a peasant can become a king with its magic, and by hiding his inner deficits that make him unfit to be a king.
Watching the people of Gondor, peasants and warriors alike, is mystifying. They move as if in a daze, not a dream, in which they are unable to respond to simple eventualities. For example, when the orcs attack and breach the first level, there are still civilians hanging around who have apparently failed to notice the gradual collapse of the door and other defenses. When the servants of the steward are helping Denethor get ready to incinerate his son, no one appears to notice or question was is going on.
Although this seems shocking, that is only because we cannot recognize it in ourselves. The way to succeed in this society is to follow whatever the people in charge say. If they want to burn their own sons, you had better help them if you want that promotion. Like Gondor, our society cannot conceive of its own demise, so while terrorists slip across our borders or rise up in our inner cities, we keep going to work and shopping the in first level, blithely oblivious and trusting in the inertia of the system.
In addition, the movie goes out of its way to make Denethor a crazed Leftist ruler. He is the author of the Boromir strategy which says that the way to defeat the enemy is to use its own technology — the ring — against it. He treats Pippin the hobbit as an ethnic pet, even (hilariously) asking him to sing, applying cultural relativism when Pippin objects that his people have no songs for great halls. “And why should your songs be unfit for my halls,” says Denethor, probably expecting Pippin to rap in Spanish.
Other scenes haunt us. The soldiers of Gondor are mistakenly told by the mentally decaying Denethor to abandon their posts, and so they do, despite the enemy at the gates. Citizens have a dazed look as the counter-attack to recapture Osgiliath departs, seemingly both detached from what is going on and caught in a perpetual melancholy and self-centeredness. The group seems amazed when Boromir actually does something like repel orcs from its shores.
We live in the same state of solipsistic melancholy now. We expect nothing but failure from society so that we are never disappointed, and we mindlessly repeat the platitudes of our insane leaders because we know that if we do not, we will be fired from our jobs if not arrested for hate crimes. When they declare war, we go along, without a hope that things will go well.
This is what happens when bad leadership afflicts a nation, brought on — as Gandalf observes — by the passing of the old order into obsolescence. When there is no purpose to a society, kings become like everyone else fascinated by personal pursuits, which relate more to the ego than to successful, healthy, and quality-oriented results in reality. Then the insane and inept take over, and people adapt to that, then put their brains on hold in order to survive the inanity.
That shell-shocked look that afflicts the people of Gondor is visible among the people of the West today, as it was in Tolkien’s time. Modern society is miserable as a day-to-day experience. It is ugly, the leaders are crazy, the official lies are nonsensical, and people have become insatiable egotists living in worlds of their own, which makes daily life more like babysitting than civilization.
In addition, it is atomized. The family is dead, as is the extended community. Friendships and loves are split up as people flit about their lands in pursuit of careers, “education” that teaches in four years what a few months of independent study could do, and to escape the continual pattern of decay caused by diverse and anonymous cities.
Driving through most big cities, one sees the effects. Street signs are in a half-dozen languages. Communities are balkanized, with third world levels of crime, neglect, dirt and disorder. People drive erratically and act impulsively. There is zero trust, and the outside world seems hostile and incomprehensible.
As was the case in Gondor, this cannot stand. It will either right itself, collapse, or be replaced. The ideal situation is a combination of the first and third caused by a momentarily sane group gaining political power and whittling down or abolishing the previous states, then enacting a new strong leadership which is oriented toward sanity instead of zombie automaton equal obedience.
Brett Stevens does not resemble the hero you want. He is not a seven-foot-tall Viking with fire in his eyes, a sword in his hand and a lust for blood. Instead he is only a man writing about history and the future, basing his knowledge only on reading and decades of thought.
Most people now “feel” that something is wrong; they are aware that things are out of place, but do not know how, and more importantly, have no idea what they want instead. They identify certain problems that they want to go away, but this is not satisfying, because these problems did not arise by themselves. They are consequences of the direction of our civilization.
The FBI informant and Hollywood Nazi alike want you to think that race war is the answer. The Christians tell you that we need a mass revival, not that those have ever happened without become New Age style nonsense. The mainstream Republicans want to salvage the economy and military and duck the rest behind gated communities.
Very few people are focused on the real task: reversing the decline of our civilization.
Civilizations are living things. They are not abstractions. They are composed of people who share an ideal. Together, they take different roles — not equal ones — and put their effort toward maintaining a state of life. This gives people comfort and safety, but more importantly, pride. They are part of something they can believe in.
This is the most important aspect of life: pride. It has two parts. We must believe in what we are doing, and be driven to make it go further and be better than ever before. This is what keeps people going, when food is low and sleep is nonexistent. It is what nurtures life, even more than food, sleep, water and sex.
The West suffers from a lack of pride, except in the transient, because it has a lack of purpose. Our goal has become — well, nothing — and so we have made ourselves into servants of others, forgetting our own potential and the greatness that can come of it.
There remains no task except to restore this. It does not come to us through a single point of focus — race, religion, culture, values, God — but through a desire to have those things, and a will to use each one to balance the other.
Some among us advocate for these single points of focus. They mean well; however, they are not extreme enough. This is a fight for survival, and even more than living or dying, a struggle for our souls. We must dream not furtively but boldly of what we want to be, and then make ourselves into it.
This task will take all of those things. It must happen by any means necessary, with relentless extremity. That is not as simple as killing or genociding, but it requires a stronger version of the same impulse. There is no deviation. There cannot be any compromise.
We have grown up and lived in the shadow of our decline. We have sabotaged our expectations and eviscerated our hopes just to remain in this world. What Brett Stevens calls for is not to remain in this world, but to burn from within it the deceptions and conveniences, and to instead give ourselves in sacrifice to its future greatness.
This does not sound extreme in comparison to what the Hollywood neo-Nazis and raging radicals among us suggest. It seems mild-mannered, mundane, and almost bourgeois in its call for vigilant common sense. And yet, it calls us to something greater than mere radicalism.
Our task is not to remove a few bad things from amongst us, but to remake our civilization by recrafting ourselves, so that we can be not just functional, but thriving, and aspire to the excellence which defined classical civilization.
Open your eyes to the situation: the corruption, the incompetence, the broken spirits of those around you. Scan those graveyards which stretch toward the sun over the horizon, look to the ruins of our cities. Touch with your heart the emptiness in our books and art. There are only two paths, and one leads to the same, another away.
We cannot salvage any part of the current system, starting with the idea that we can choose what is right based on what exists, physically, in the present time. We must look toward the future and understand what will fulfill our dreams, restore our pride, and make us want to be more than what we are.
Some call for total war, or race war, and others want us to end the immediate travesties. These are temporary goals; our goal must be eternity. We seek what will make us greet the rising sun with joy and a lust for existence, a desire to exceed ourselves in every way, and to become something new.
The last few thousand years have been misery in slow doses. Each year is worse than the one before, but because this is invisible to most, the good people among us shrug it off and do their best to slow it down. It can no longer be slowed. It must be defeated, banished, and replaced with something so much better that it drives the darkness away.
On paper, what Brett Stevens and those like him advocate seems mild. If you let it into your imagination however, you see that it is a scream of rage for the establishment of the wonderful instead of the adequate, the powerful instead of the convenient.
Neo-Nazism will not do this for you, nor will Anarcho-Capitalism. No “System” can help us. Systems are an artifact of the idea of equality, where each person gets treated like an interchangeable part of uniform value, and by mass motion we “solve” problems while ignoring the big problem, the elephant in the room.
Brett Stevens may not be the writer or the candidate that you desire. That is fine; there are others. What matters is the ideas, the framing of our situation so that we can see clearly, instead of muddling our way through definitions and assumptions created by those who control. What matters is the goal.
Western Civilization is worth defending. It is our future; without it, all that we do vanishes in dissipation and erosion like all the good of the last seventy years. The only extreme position is to tackle the whole of the task, and to set aside emotion and personal concerns, so that we can join hands and rise out of this fallen time.
It is time to acknowledge that the enemy of all sane people is modernity, because modernity is insane. The conventional view of modernity is that it is related to technological progress, but this is backward. Modernity is the condition that turns technological progress into dystopia by mismanagement.
This is the face of modernity. There’s no way to tackle a specific issue in it, because the whole thing is wrong. Sure, we could make rules about stopping at intersections, but then you need a cop in every intersection to enforce that rule, or people learn they can get away with it, most of the time, thus they don’t change the behavior. Similarly, we’d have to assign an infallible cop to every single person out there to prevent littering, toxic waste dumping, or sodomizing rape. Even worse is that no matter how many rules we write, there are always new ways to do something that is technically legal yet completely devoid of moral consideration for society and nature as a whole. You can make sodomizing rape porn illegal, but someone else will find something legal that’s similar and will market it, and they’ll be cheered on by those around them because hey, everyone loves money.
Modernity is the cause of this. We often think that our time suffers because it has no unifying philosophy, but the situation is even worse: our unifying philosophy is one of making no decisions. Instead of having a government you trust, you have the “freedom” to escape actions by your government, since it is assumed that you and the government will never come to accord on a sane way to live. You wanted a sensible job? Too bad – it’s more important to have competition so that if your job sucks, you can devote the next month to finding a better one. Let the jobs that suck continue to exist, so long as we have the freedom to choose a lesser degree of suck. We’re so afraid of legislation that we resist any restrictions on development, so if people destroy your neighborhood by covering its forests with concrete, your can move to a less-destroyed neighborhood.
Inevitably, such systems spiral out of control, because of two principles: relativity, and time. Relativity is a problem in that you can find something that sucks less, so you pick that instead instead of fixing the problem. Time compounds that by introducing a succession of greater suckstates, and you keep picking the lesser suckstates, until at some point the less-sucks sucks as much as the original, and you still have no recourse to change it – you’re looking for something that sucks less, instead. Everything affected by this model is a vortex of decreasing standards that eventually culminates in either apocalypse or third-world-style anarchy. But remember, you need that “freedom,” because instead of fixing the problem and creating a sensible government, we want you to be able to defend yourself against all governments.
This is clearly diseased reasoning, if looked at from an architectural perspective, but since such things don’t pay, no one does. No one is willing to target the whole of modernity, for at least the simple reason that it makes change a seemingly large task. I think it makes it a simpler task, as when we’ve found out where we went wrong, we can systematically replace those beliefs with something healthier. But in a modern time, we’re used to external ways of change. Use money as a carrot, and the law as the stick; “educate” (brainwash) people, or make them sign off on decisions like bureaucrats. We understand force, and treating humans and nature alike like machines, but we don’t understand internal motivation, or how we could actually make people understand what they do and why. Reversing this attitude would alone undo modern society, and would give us a clear and relatively easy path of change.
William Faulkner treated this subject tangentially in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech way back in 1950:
Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat…Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands…I decline to accept the end of man….I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s, the writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.
The gestalt we find by combining the many details of society’s failing shows us that things are not well; things are diseased and destructive. We are oblivious to them not because we ignore the details, but because we pay attention only to certain details, and we do this because modernity more than being a “thing” is a state of mind. We look at the external forces we can impose, the qualitative measurements we can use, or the ways we can manipulate each other and thus feel clever about ourselves. These are passive ways of looking at the world, and as they don’t encompass all of it, they constitute only a certain segment of its detail, and leave us oblivious to the larger picture.
In other words, modernity is a mindset, not a thing or a specific process, including technology. It is a human system of organization that corresponds to the later stages of civilization, at which point its strength — a reflection of concentration of resources in areas like technology, military and economic might — is at a peak, but it is highly internally divided and likely to hit the pavement soon.
Another way to describe this mindset is as a pathology, or a repetitive behavior which is triggered independent of its results, so that it is repeated even when it fails:
Modernity is not tangible. It is an idea, thought or notion, like the worst of our afflictions. Obesity starts with ignoring the consequences of calories. Alcoholism starts with a denial of the effects of alcohol. All insanity begins with the thought that reality follows our minds, not the other way around.
Any number of false enemies will come your way. These fakes rely on your frustration and difficulty articulating why you are upset. Their goal is to make you fight them, so they gain through guilt and necessity a place at your table. These are parasites, but not the cause of our misfortune.
The real enemy is a thought. Other mistaken notions resemble it in that they are not immediate in result. You can get away with the deception for some time. You may even be able to fake it on a regular basis. Eventually, the disastrous results come due.
Modernity is now showing us its ugly side. Across the globe, governments have bankrupted themselves in pursuit of liberal programs. Societies have become dysfunctional, families ruined, daily life a miserable imitation of TV shows, and jobs and commerce have taken over souls.
Leftism and modernity are inseparable. As Bruce Charlton writes:
The way I would conceptualise matters is that government and politics will always be based on some view of the Human Condition. This may be implicit rather than explicit. At present, all mainstream politics works on the assumption that what is important is hedonic (in one way or another) and confined to mortal life.
A ‘Religious’ society is to be taken as short-hand for a society built on the assumption that this is *not* the bottom line, but a means to an end which extends beyond pleasure and mortality – although of course religions vary widely as to what that might be.
Your description fits into the Religious category – although I suppose it is more like an individual spirituality than what is normally considered A Religion – nonetheless its scope is religious.
Here he refers to the same psychology that Faulkner identifies above. Healthy societies worry about moral purpose, and whether or not their actions are producing a benevolence toward life itself or not. Unhealthy societies focus on people and keeping the group together by offering inclusion in exchange for obedience; we call this control.
Control denies our inner traits in order to focus on ways to manipulate us so that everyone is doing the same thing. This assumption of identical motivations, which is closely related to equality, forms the basis of social control or control by the appearance of our actions to the judging minds of others, which determines whether we can be part of the “in” crowd or are ostracized and left with fewer options, since people advance each other socially.
This leads to a situation where all values are externalized:
While our society is divided into left and right, its fundamental impetus has been from a liberal viewpoint, in philosophical terms. This viewpoint is the idea of fundamental human rights and equality, meaning that we all get treated the same way regardless of wealth or quality, and from that, we get “justice.” Both Republicans and Democrats embrace this view, and even far-flung parties like Greens and Nationalists seem to, which means that in our political outlook, there is no deviation from this assumption. We view equality as the highest good, the individual as the highest pursuit, and wealth as the means of that pursuit, and anyone who doesn’t agree with that is worse than a Commie or a Nazi, they’re a failure and probably a sociopath.
In our desire to be equal as people, we have denied the person within: the internal traits and preferences that make each of us who we are. We can be measured by our wealth, or our height, or our wish list on amazon.com, but what defines us as individuals has nothing to do with these external factors. It is a combination of personality and abilities. We want to be remembered not only for our skill at guitar playing, but for what the songs we wrote conveyed and made real to others. We want to be known not just for participation in public beach cleanup programs, but our own private choices and sacrifices that helped keep waste out of the world. Even more, we want to be known for how we treated our friends, how we raised our families, and the things we valued enough to die for them, as a life is looked over when the living is done. These are all internal factors, and they are denied by modern society in its desire for external equality.
And so what is the root of modernity? There are two types of civilizations, at the most basic level:
Forward motivated. In these societies, people decide what is right and then do it. In this world, the cause is a moral or aesthetic need, and the effect is translating that principle into action.
Reversed cognition. Societies of this type argue from convenience, looking at what is already present — materials, humans — and find a compromise that includes all of those to hold the society together.
The latter approach may be referred to as rationalism, because it rationalizes from material and social reactions instead of planning what might be ideal.
The difficulty with this approach, as people brainwashed in modernity see it, is “Who decides?” They are accustomed to “systems” or control structures where all people participate in formalized, universal activities and when they demonstrate exceptional obedience to the principle of control — equality — they are chosen as leaders.
In saner times, people realized that inequality of ability is a fundamental aspect of life itself, and that learning is esoteric or dependent on the ability of the person and how much cumulative knowledge they have already mastered. For this reason, such a society is hierarchical or based on leadership structures like the military.
That in turn implies an interesting quandary: when we need the best, we must ask the best who to choose, because per the Dunning-Kruger Effect, only the best will recognize others of that ability, just like only geniuses recognize other geniuses.
In such a group, the process is started when a threat troubles the tribe, and someone makes it go away through heroic or insightful action. At that point, this person becomes selected as one of the best, and can choose others to form part of a leadership cadre or caste.
These societies have existed for time immemorial. Their order is not older, but simply more evolved than what we have now, which is mob rule plus lots of regulations to try to make equally insane people sane. This order has four cornerstones and is how, in any age or place, one produces a healthy civilization.
Modernity is the inversion of this. It was crafted by those who wished to seize power. Their goal was to abolish hierarchy through equality and then, by using the same tactics of snake-oil salesman, conning the herd into doing their bidding. Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel are contemporary versions of this psychology.
Ironically, such people come about because of the success of a civilization. When societies succeed, they implement order and institutions which then allow those who could not survive without civilization to survive. The more brain-dead labor is needed, the more deleterious mutations accumulate in people who cannot exist without a narrow path of instructions guiding them.
This tells us what society must do if it is to avoid downfall: it must constantly produce more of the intelligent people, and pare down or eliminate those who are foolish, or cannot survive on their own without civilization. This requires a society willing to be more like the Spartans, who sacrificed defective children to avoid contaminating their gene pool.
An ideal way to do this gently is hierarchy keeps power in the hands of the best, and limits the options of the worst, encouraging them to leave the civilization and try their luck elsewhere. All orders break down over time, which is why “systems” do not work; what does work is keeping quality of citizenry and thought high to discourage the lower.
Modern people — to those who have crossed the abyss of thought that separates modern people from reality — seem robotic and confused on this point. They cannot conceive of anything other than a system which makes guarantees based on universal, formalized action.
In fact, the path to health is like that of nature. No universality, because people are not equal; no formalization, because systems are easily gamed by the cynical but defective. This is the natural order to which our ancestors aspired, and if we are to reverse modernity, it is what we must target again.
Bruce Charlton writes about a concept from Tolkien, the eucatastrophe. In this configuration, everything seems lost until the end, when a twist brings about not just a positive result, but one better than can have been imagined.
It would seem like nonsense, except that this pattern appears so often in life. Imagine early humans: the species of monkey which could not hunt like the rest, and started to rely on tools, exiled from the group. Instead a great series of civilizations arose.
At the risk of sounding slightly cheerful, let us look at a possible eucatastrophe for humanity:
Defying all expectations, Donald Trump is elected President of the United States. Whatever he does next matters less than the fact that his election has re-shaped a mood from liberalism to common sense realism. The United States ceases its relentless pro-Leftist propaganda worldwide, and starts looking inward.
A ripple effect of right-wing parties take root in Europe and Asia. The electorate, having seen now that any Leftism leads inevitably to something like Communism, want off of the crazy train, and they are willing to gamble on the comeback kids in the far-right. Attitudes shift.
Pitfall: The temptation here is to stop with this, and to assume that our solutions are political in nature and need only one strong step, instead of many small and unique ones guided by a handful of over-riding principles.
Let us leave politics. People have changed. There is a recognition that the last few thousand years have been screwups, death by a thousand cuts at a very gradual pace, and so people are changing how they live. The old values — honor, pride, race, culture, reverence, excellence, cosmicism — are back.
People begin to rediscover God. By the principle of mythic imagination, he does not “exist,” at least until people use their creative minds to see the possibility of his existence, knitting themselves into a pattern of the universe that includes both God and man. Soon His presence is felt again, and doubt disperses.
Simultaneously there is a revolution against the consumer lifestyle. With big picture goals, people no longer need to find false gods in products and salaries. A movement toward smaller cities and towns, more time off and less time at work, takes root. People find their gadgets have no souls.
Across Europe, a low self-confidence perpetrated by two sadistic and fratricidal World Wars begin to lift. People sing “Wir sind wir” on their daily walks through their towns and cities. A great exhalation occurs; relaxation and hope arrives.
Pitfall: When one starts to feel good about oneself, the usual response is to stop striving, but this enters the death-cycle of calcification. That ends the process that provides the sense of well-being.
There is no mass awakening. Instead, the guardians shake off their slumber. Intellectuals — those who think for the sake of thinking — are deposed not by more nerds, but by intensely practical men of infinite faith in existence who want to create the best.
Laws are torn down like unwanted advertisements, bureaucrats and politicians are ejected from jobs, media is bashed back to its rightful place as a servant. The upper fifth of the population by intelligence becomes hard, seeing not trendy grey areas but lines in the sand, and it rejects the parasitic and self-serving.
The far-right trend continues, but these parties now have a different focus. It is like an unstated agreement that the non-indigenous must go, but now they focus on making life better. Instead of many regulations, they create cultural change that rewards more time at home, more reverence, and a zeal for excellence.
As far as the non-indigenous go, the exodus is in full swing. First the benefits were cut off, then the laws against discrimination went. Soon they had no welfare and no jobs, and they were evicted. When they rioted, whole sections of the city were blocked off and fire trucks were not sent in. As they stood in the ashes, they realized they had defeated themselves.
With nothing for them there, the non-indigenous leave. The miscegenated find themselves similarly excluded, and in a huff, proclaim their hatred for the societies that birthed them and depart for happier ground in Africa and Asia. No one blinks an eye. Ancestral traditions return.
The night is again full of spirits.
What amazes everyone is that this revolution has occurred without murder. Former enemies, having seen the writing on the wall, shrug and give up on the ideas that they trusted to animate their lives, but which did not bring them joy. In fact, a focus on joy and reverence as balanced principles has returned to Western European civilization worldwide.
People know now that they will be rewarded for doing not just good, but right. And so, punishing thieves is common, as is resigning from a job if the company pollutes. The mega-cities evaporate as people move to smaller cities and towns. A sense of morality returns, this time as a prerequisite for tolerating someone else.
Among those who read literature and history, a discontent arises. Our gains have been so great — but now what? An interest in ancient history arises, and some even peer back into the dark early ages of humankind to see an entirely different social order, one based on hierarchy and excellence.
What were once cynically called “cultural events” become commonplace. People welcoming the new moon at midnight is a regular sight. Nature-worship returns, and large groups collaborate to remove unnecessary buildings and parking lots and plant trees again.
A massive exodus occurs out of Europe. Many if not most are discontented with this new order and hate it with all of their hearts. They move to Brazil, Singapore, and Dubai. Somehow life goes on, in fact with fewer glitches and less neurosis than before.
Pitfall: One cannot stop halfway on a path. This is only the beginning. To see it through to its end requires people of a certain understanding, but now they have the foundation for it.
The world has changed. History is dead; it has been replaced by an endless present, where every moment is sacred and none is the center of existence. People live for eternal things and so lose sight of time. In every town, there is silence, broken only when necessary, as people drink up this state of mind like a parched man seeks water.
Men come home to their families and experience ineffable joy. Farmers see the potential of infinity in their fields. Warriors thirst for the clash of armies. People report feeling a sense of place that they cannot articulate. As if they have come home.
Technology resumes advancing. Massive improvements are made in manufacturing and space travel. The night sky opens with potential, both within the soul and out there, in the undiscovered vastness made by the gods. People begin to dream again, to relish life, and to worship nature both red in claw and green in gentleness.
Third world peoples, having returned to their lands of origin, begin to discover what type of society works for them and stop caring about what the rest of the world thinks. The mixed-race begin to be absorbed into these populations, with outside influences vanishing into the more genetically-diverse locals.
The human retreat from cities liberates the land for a new type of arrangement: half of it goes to humans, and the rest is wilderness. People realize that more than having to do this for preservation, they must do it to keep their own dreams alive. Of a wild place, wild gods, and infinite possibility. Television stations shut down in cascades.
When they look back on the recent history of humankind, people now see a nightmare of several thousand years, culminating in the disaster of democracy. If you tell a person from this time that he is “equal,” he will punch you in the face for denying him his uniqueness and role.
Illusions collapse like dominoes. Entropy retreats to the corners of the world. People live with purpose again, and embrace the tragedies and warfare as a necessary part of life that leads to more eucatastrophes. As that is what everyone agrees has happened: it was darkest before dawn, and then the sun broke over the horizon.
Those of us who take up the pen, if we are honest, never advocate that which is destructive, but we often must speak favorably of that which seems destructive because it goes against the assumptions of our time. Keep in mind that the Crowd is always wrong, or at least looking in the wrong places, so what it insists is true is in fact a deception.
However, on the Right and associated “movements,” there a number of people who do not advocate win-win solutions where every group comes out ahead. Instead, the us-versus-them narrative replaces a reasonable take on reality, as is the case with the Left, which in the future — if there is one — will be seen as a type of mental disease.
The grim fact is that what is spoken of here will benefit everyone. African-Americans, Orientals/Hispanics, Indic Asians and others would benefit from being sent back to their home continents with new knowledge — and more importantly, new expectations. A whole lot of people in India demanding American-style functional institutions would advance conditions there quite a bit, much as Americans coming back from Europe and Asia demanded higher standards during our frontier days, and by creating a market, ensured they would occur.
Nationalism works. Aristocracy works. Socialism does not work; positive reward does. Transcendental outlook, duty and naturalism work. Hierarchy works. Everything else fails: we have had 6,000 years of human civilization, and it is clear what works for producing higher civilization, and what does not. Our only enemy is our fear.
This fear is understandable. Radicals — even the intelligent and realistic ones — demand that we abandon what we know and launch off into new territory, even if it is only new to us and not new to history. But what we have now is not working; people are miserable and not breeding, becoming degenerate and apathetic, often simply self-hating.
Thus we have a world to gain beyond the barrier of fear, and by continuing with the present, only a slow road to decay.
This decision is thrust upon all of us whether we want it or not, and at some point, we must choose one of the two directions. Do we wish to rise or continue falling? The solutions will be scary at first, but as the logic behind them is revealed, we will see better results.
Seven Layer Dip can be found at quality parties throughout the American southwest. Layers of cheese, meat, guacamole, salsa, bean dip, sour cream and vegetables are stacked and eaten with corn chips. However, it also provides a potent metaphor.
In the forthcoming book by this author, Parallelism1, the text describes a philosophy where all factors are considered instead of only those factors which the human notes because they are convenient for his thesis. Where modernity operates through the method of quantitative change, or selecting one element among many, parallelism takes the opposite approach and considers all elements at once.
When we talk about how to revitalize the West, this comes into play. Some say we need a renewal of religion, others want an end to democracy, still others demand hierarchy, some want race war, and some say we need rigorous capitalism to burn out the parasite infection. None of these are wrong, but all are incomplete.
Restoration of the West will require a combination of extrinsic and intrinsic factors. The intrinsic factors are a change in our attitudes and cultural outlook, but the extrinsic factors are what protects and nurtures the develop of those intrinsic factors. Liberalism is a lie; there is no “single idea” that can fix our problems, but a cluster of related notions united by principle.
For example, if our principle is the idea of an ascendant society, we can choose to orient that society toward existential well-being, or people feeling safe and secure. That requires in turn a stable type of society, which will correspond to the four pillars: methods which have worked since the dawn of time and will work for any intelligent species at any time.
In this way, our restoration plan works like the seven-layer dip. Religion, race, culture, values, government/anti-state, economic system and intrinsic renewal leading to attitudinal change work together toward the same goal. All are there, in every bite. This is the only sane model and those who reject it are focusing too much on what cultivates an audience, and not enough on what works.
1 — Looking for publishers at this time. Rejected by the big three. Too controversial, or just too inept?
The past that people romanticize never existed! Now, everything has changed, and it will never return. The best thing to do is give up and move to Costa Rica, so that you can at least live cheaply and watch it all collapse. There is no point trying to save it.
Wonder what disguised ideological theory we have here? Oh, right: progress. See, it’s $currentyear and so nothing is ever like any other time in history, and our problems are the result of us changing through progress, so the only solution is to abandon everything and go with new unproven theory!
Cucks love any excuse to duck out on the obvious: our problems exist because of poor leadership and are easily fixed by removing that poor leadership. At that point, we are in a state like the past, and much as that was the result of natural growth and evolution, we will naturally grow and evolve to greatness.
But what if Plato was right, and many civilizations have gone through a “civilization life cycle” where they choose poorly and ended up destroyed? And by implication, what if we could either avoid going down the death-path or, finding ourselves on it, reverse course not by “going back” but by “choosing differently”?
When one makes choices in life, and they are wrong, those choices can often be reversed. When the question is one of a difficult situation, but to fail to reverse those choices means death, then the difficult must be tackled as it was in the various seemingly insurmountable wars and depressions previously. And as we find out with the various panics that did not kill us, the hype is usually far greater than the actual threat.
With that in mind, I present several tiers of solutions:
End democracy. Elect representatives to change constitutions, collapse government, engage in rebellion or subvert from within. Any will work, and all are relatively frequent methods of regime change. Instead of choosing those who have the most and deciding they are our best, we should choose our best and give them the wealth and power so they will not abuse it and use it to increase our joy in life.
End diversity. Revoke all affirmative action, civil rights and anti-discrimination law. Restore freedom of contract. Recognize that immigration is illegal and arrange for the deportation of all who do not belong here. Resume using strong ethnic identities of the people features in movies, advertising, books and public life.
End overpopulation. Cease all welfare states and any laws which protect people from their own actions. End immigration, foreign aid and other aid programs. End mandatory and subsidized medical care. Form a union of Western Europeans among whom we trade and share technology, and exclude the rest of the world.
End government. Reduce taxes to the bare minimum required for defense and roads. Sell off all other divisions of government on the open market. Invalidate all regulations and laws made since 1790. End public education and health programs.
Strengthen culture. Build institutions like libraries, schools, churches, volunteer groups and local governments in the mold of the classical education our great-grandparents knew. Eliminate all triviality. Create the notion of the “cultured person” which is available only to the above-125 IQ people who come from the descendants of our First Families. Everyone else goes to the undistinguished levels of hierarchy. Promote the good as being above the rest in all ways.
Restore religion. Religious leaders today follow the example of commerce: offer something convenient to the herd. This however drives away anyone who wants actual religion, and attracts people who will find the same thrill at a rock concert… and after a time, depart for that easier and more convenient option. A general retirement plan for all the panderers, and promotion of those who take religion for what it is, will drive away the fly-by-night people and create a solid core. This core will then expand as its relative happiness shocks the triviality-dedicated people.
Renew racial consciousness. A generation ago, heroes like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone were considered normal and healthy, but under the stern gaze of “racism” they become demons. Using the power of mass consciousness, these heroes can be restored to their position as role models. This will drive away the neurotic, and affirm the masculine and assertive aspects of our culture.
Reduce promiscuity. Bring back shame and guilt as a means of public order. Set an example, use scorn as a weapon, and allow people to freely associate so that deviants get sidelined.
Undo anonymity. Create tax incentives for smaller cities and moderately sized towns instead of mega-cities and emphasize personal connections over C.V. in hiring.
Reduce media. Remove the protections granted media against piracy and tax the living heck out of them. Allow the movie industry to die. Remove any protections for promises or assertions made in advertising.
Civilization is only as good as its social order. However, like many classic designs, these work whenever applied. We need a spiritual revolution, yes, but it needs support from the behaviors created by the choices we make in designing our civilization. The past is not dead; it is not even past.
All these things are entirely destructive, and none of them can be criticized.
Their removal, over time, would go a long way towards the restoration of a functional civilization.
Most people view the task of restoring civilization as this long and burdensome road to some new and ambiguous system, forgetting (apparently) that we had a more functional society as little as eighty years ago, and we can return to it by ceasing to do the stupid stuff we have made mandatory since then.
When one understands Crowdism as a pathology and not a political philosophy, it becomes clear that most people are unnecessary and therefore parasitic. They cannot achieve civilization on their own nor will they support it if given power. This is why in the past, we put them in lower castes and ignored their opinions entirely.
Our society still does the same thing, incidentally, but instead of picking good people to lead us, we choose people who are good at making themselves rich using government and the vast population of useless people as consumers. These are naturally manipulative, corrupt and reality-denying obliviots like Barack 0bama, Angela Merkel, David Cameron and François Hollande.
Through equality, and the vote to legitimize parasitism as equal to contribution and therefore to justify both government power and all these great “free” benefits programs, societies destroy themselves. Equality is the opposite of quality, and without quality, you get third-world levels of social function, and eventually third-world people show up to displace you since you are not doing any better than they are, but have more wealth.
A healthy future can begin for us by simply removing the many justifications of the parasites and the laws that support them, including the list above. If that were done, society would naturally head toward an equilibrium where quality rose above the quantity-obsessed herd.
No one knows what conservatives conserve anymore. The average person thinks that conservatives preserve the current social order, which is far from true for anyone who has a conservative outlook; to such a person, we live in a fallen time and what is required is an undoing of the radical changes that have occurred, knowing that such changes will appear “radical” or “extreme” solely because we are so far off the path.
For this reason, we need a new word for those who want to reverse Western decline: restorationist.
A restorationist wants to conserve what has made civilizations rise above the rest to excellence, and has nothing to do with “conserving” the inferior versions of what has been forgotten. A restorationist rejects our society as it is, and points instead toward a type of a social order that leads to the type of supremacy of competence that classical civilization created. A restorationist works toward a society that rejects government, laws and economic manipulation — all means of control — in favor of a cooperative, goal-based society ruled by principles enshrined in culture and an aristocracy.
Look at this wasteland. Jobs are jails, people are broken. “Culture” is disposable junk and novelty fetishism. Our social institutions are banana republic versions of what once brought greatness. People are solipsistic, isolated within themselves and yet determined to project their needs onto others. The result is a vast emptiness disguised by constant meaningless activity.
Restorationists aim to end all of this. We recognize there is no Utopia, nor human perfection, only constant battle against evil or the innate pitfalls of human consciousness. Our goal is to use the methods that have been proven to make the most healthy civilizations, and to extend them toward excellence, so that our civilization points itself toward greatness instead of the absence thereof. We know that a society is either heading toward excellence, or the opposite direction, and what appears to be a “grey area” is merely the time between an act and the arrival of its consequences.
Restorationism naturally excludes all currently de rigeur methods because these are infected with the limits that create our current society. What society fears and makes taboo includes those methods necessary to reverse the decay. If a political method is currently proscribed, that is because it will un-do and revoke the current system, not because it will not succeed. Power structures prohibit that which undoes them, and since our current direction is toward failure, those in power have systematically made taboo all necessary methods of reversing the decline.
For this reason, those of us who desire restoration recognize that there is no compromise with the current power structure. Government, law and ideology are not only corrupt, but corrupting influences, and everything they touch even slightly immediately starts heading toward destruction, just as how a drop of sewage converts a barrel of wine into sewage.
Nothing will motivate people in any meaningful way except restoration of classical civilization. Everything else is a band-aid, a short-term convenience applied in order to delay the inevitable end. If you wonder why conservatives lack the fanaticism of liberals, it is this: liberalism promises Utopia, and conservatism is afraid to offer the Realist version, which is a functional society that also provides existential beauty and pleasure to its citizens.
Currently the Right is riding a wave of victories as the programs of Leftism demonstrate their failures. Leftists being canny manipulators, they will quickly switch sides for a singular reason. They will want to infect the Right with the ideas of the Left so that after the Right-wing rebellion swings into power, it will re-create the Leftist idea and place society back on the path to ruin.
We either purge this sickness from our souls by going an entirely different direction, or it assimilates us much as it converts food into junk, culture into spam, theory into babble and civilization into parasitism. Seeing the problem in this light gives us new momentum, which is why the only social/cultural change that can compete with Leftism is found in restorationism.
Restorationists desire the four pillars of making civilization functional again:
Rule by culture. Government and police are inferior methods compared to citizens who view society as a cooperative endeavor toward a goal, according to principles held in common. These are a product of culture. To defend culture, all who are not of the ethnic group must be excluded; this is a principle called Nationalism. With nationalism, government is deprecated and day-to-day order is kept through use of shame, ostracism and exclusion to keep outsiders and saboteurs at bay.
Hierarchy and excellence. Society can either take its rich and powerful and assume they are good, or find those among its people who are excellent — superior in ability, leadership, intelligence and moral insight — and give them the wealth and power to use well. 99% of humanity will make these decisions wrong, and all people in groups will choose to avoid facing real issues. We need those who do the opposite to have power and wealth to ensure that it is used well, much as (in theory) we entrust nuclear weapons only to those of excellent character.
Positive reward systems. Again we face a primary division: we either force everyone to conform and look for anomalies to punish, or we diligently reward those who do well so that they ascend to positions of leadership. A heroic culture does some of this, but on a more practical level, so does capitalism: it rewards those who find opportunity and meet needs, as kept in check by culture and hierarchy.
A transcendental goal. No healthy society has merely material goals. It aims to achieve the impossible so that it can constantly improve, such as the motives of ancient societies to achieve balance, harmony, equilibrium and excellence. Religion is part of this, but not the whole. We must collaborate toward a goal again and have it be more than tangible, but eternal.
Each of these four pillars is so massively taboo in our society that mere mention of it sends the people who are vested in the system scurrying for cover. These are the poisons that un-do our current dysfunctional order, which makes them medicine for those who wish to escape certain doom as civilization collapses, including the destruction of all they have worked for.
Twisting an internet witticism, this can be expressed as: To find out what is destroying your society, discover which ideas are considered beyond criticism. Our civilization is ruled by those dedicated to its decline so that they can parasitize it. The only solution is to restructure civilization so that it works again, which naturally makes such people obsolete, and they will move on to somewhere else where the pickings are easier.