In the Middle East every step is a misstep. It can’t be any other way. Personally, it wouldn’t bother me overmuch if the whole place went code red and everyone with a trigger pulled same. Let the purists sob quietly in a corner, I care about America and western civilization, all else is either under suspicion or entertainment.
While the first part of this statement is rhetoric more than reality — nuclear war toxifies the rest of us with radiation, and the middle east must be managed or it becomes an even worse threat, either by itself or in the hands of other wannabe superpowers — the rest is pure gold, a distillation of what the Alt Right and other “original Rightist” types should be thinking.
Revisiting that statement:
I care about America and western civilization, all else is either under suspicion or entertainment.
Restoring Western Civilization is the name of the game. We know it has fallen because at the point where you get Angela Merkel and Barack Obama as leaders, your civilization has gone full retard and can no longer make intelligent decisions. Even more, we know that it has fallen because our people have stopped reproducing at replacement rates, a sure sign that they are miserable.
Even more, we can tell that it has failed because it no longer produces greatness. We have entertainment, not culture, and novelty and trends instead of profundity and continuous tradition in art, literature, philosophy, science and academia. Our governments are just beginning to encounter the pensions-and-benefits bomb that will end them, and our economies are reeling because we have imposed too many costs on them in order to drain money for our expensive social welfare states and diversity programs. There are no sane voices in public because too many things are taboo to say. It is over, and we knew this would happen, because democracy always goes out this way.
More disturbingly, something had to go wrong for us to get to the state where democracy seemed like a good idea. All of our great empires self-destructed, like the Romans and Greeks, and that alone tells us that people were thinking wrongly, maybe looking for what was convenient instead of what was right according to a natural order based on purpose and ability. We grew too fast, produced too many useless people, and then justified ourselves with The Enlightenment,™ after which point the individual was sacrosanct and any idea of cooperation, sacrifice, duty, familial loyalty, spiritual belief and culture was suspect.
In short, Western Civilization has died. This quote comes up every now and again, and seems to fit:
Someone once asked Mahatma Gandhi what he thought of Western civilization. “I think it would be a good idea,” he said.*
We can restore this civilization the way we restore anything else: trim out the dead wood and replace it, fix the structure so it is functional again, then clean it up and nurture it until works again. Like Bob Vila on This Old House, we might choose to tear down the ill-advised additions, put in the old pillars that kept the porch from leaning, and add some improvements if we can.
Forget America. As much as it pains me to say it, America has failed because it was based on a Leftist idea. You cannot have equality and a working society. You need a leadership hierarchy and a caste system. With democracy, you end up with internally divided leadership, which avoids the extremes of broken European rule at the time but compromises to the Left and dissolves in factionalism.
The Constitution is dead. It was a nifty idea that we could limit democracy. Forget it: democracy evolved and worked around it and now we have the exact type of state that our Founders loathed. Forget America as an idea, too; it made sense when it was a colony of Western Europeans, but once we let in other groups it turned into a non-culture, a giant shopping mall that will kill you for not being democratic enough.
This leaves us with Western Civilization. How do we restore it? Five percent of our society are “natural leaders,” or people whose innate competence leads others to rely on them. We need these people to understand what the goal is and then for others to emulate them. Then we need to take over and make changes. Any other methods can be ad hoc because they are not permanent.
When we get to the point where there is a cultural sense of Western European identity, a monarchic system with supporting aristocracy, a caste system whose higher echelons guide culture and consumer products, a resistance to socialism and equality of all kinds, and a sense of purpose again including that beyond this world, then we will be reborn. Until that time, we suffer.
Western Civilization was a good thing. Starting a thousand years ago, it fell into decline, but as is the nature of decline, this was not an absolute condition but a gradual one overlapping some of the greatest moments of Western Civilization. Thus it was both rising and falling at the same time but its ultimate direction was toward failure.
Starting in 1789 and extending to 1968, the West fully collapsed, and all of us born after those times have inherited a vast disaster which we alternately try to save and escape. This schizophrenic state cannot last; we must choose one, and the sensible answer is to stand and fight, saving what is good and throwing out the rest.
That requires however that we give up false allegiances. Our only allegiance can be to Western Civilization and the genetic stock of Western Europeans that produces it. Everything else is an intermediate, a symbol standing for those great things, and by misdirecting us from the reality to the symbol, these become parasites.
What we think of as our nations — governments and institutions — are dead. They are working against us. The only solution is to destroy them much as we destroy any other enemy, so that in their place we can create something working again. The real culture we need is within our souls, and all of the means to that end need to be removed because they have become corrupted.
We must burn every American and German flag. And cheat every tax authority and public institution. We should ignore all social obligations. Whatever destroys this society is good, and whatever helps it is bad. Burn it down to the ground and keep what we have that still works, carried over from the past, and rebuild on the basis of keeping what is good, and destroying what is bad.
Most people do not realize that we exist in a fallen civilization. Western Civilization, once great, died before we were born. Now we are those who are either trying to hold on to an illusion from the past, or those who are ready to erase that illusion and instead, re-create Western Civilization by displacing the parasites who rule its corpse, and renewing it like a phoenix, rising among the ashes.
Here are ten ways you can tell that you are living in a dying age…
Overpopulation. We hit 7.5 billion human monkeys this week. How will all of these people live? The answer is simple: by consuming everything we know of as our environment, and leaving behind only ruined wastelands full of starving people who cannot allocate the resources or achieve the social organization necessary to feed them. The first world is imploding, and the third world exploding.
Diversity. To survive, every group needs to prioritize itself above all others. This is sensible, but means that multiple groups cannot co-exist in the same society. Groups which fail to prioritize themselves will simply fade away. As a result, diversity cannot work, and creates the ethnic tensions that Leftists — consummate reality-deniers — call “racism.”
Tragedy of the Commons. A tragedy of the commons happens when a resource exists and individuals discover that they have an incentive to exploit it. The Left blames “capitalism” for this problem, but really, it occurs anytime a resource is owned by no one but accessible to all. Imagine a forest: if every person needs firewood, each will cut as much as he can, and soon there will be no forest. With cultural cooperation and a shared purpose, people limit their own takings, but in an atomized dying civilization, each person exploits to the maximum to the ruin of all.
Ineptitude. Societies that are dying tend to formalize rules and procedures as a means of working around the inequality of human beings which mean that some are more competent than others. Instead of choosing the best, these societies set up “meritocracies” based on memorization and obedience. This means that they select incompetents in both public and private, leading to idiocy like Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, American President Barack Obama, and Catholic Pope Francis.
Low human quality. When a civilization is dying, it becomes inverted, or focused on the opposite of every meaning so that it can make everyone feel accepted. This means that the good are penalized so the bad can be included as well. This keeps the society together despite its citizens no longer having any real relevance to each other. As a result, the good fail to breed and are replaced by the thoughtless, selfish and mediocre.
This correlates highly with a “free rider” problem. In organized societies, it is expected that every person contribute as they are able and take in proportion to what they give, so that the most valuable members of the community are those who contribute the most. When free riders, or those take more than they give, are allowed, the society becomes dedicated to justifications, rationalizations and excuses instead of actions and the responsibility for them. This creates an industry out of government where people are paid to manage the free riders and in turn become a type of “mega free riders” themselves by blessing the decay and being rewarded handsomely for it, despite making negative contributions to the society.
Pollution. No sane society sacrifices tomorrow for today, but every dying civilization does exactly that because in absence of a cooperative spirit, each person wants to extract as much wealth as possible and flee the collapsing ruin. As a result, it becomes culturally acceptable to be self-centered to the point of disregarding the environment. Disregarding others is socially taboo, but externalizing cost to the world is encouraged, especially because most resent nature for not making them equal.
Existential misery. To live in a dying time is to know that all is for naught; every act of the individual will be ground down into the same uniformity as everything else, and nothing honestly good will be appreciated. In addition, people are aware at a gut level that their society is crashing and dying. As a result, they become alienated and unstable because they have no actual hope for the future. This misery spreas between individuals.
Existential misery relates strongly to a sense of purpose. Healthy civilizations have some form of purpose which is shaped from an ongoing and immutable goal, even something as simple as “be the best possibility of what we are.” When a civilization turns inward, and focuses on people instead of purpose, the existential certainty and meaning that comes from purpose is forgotten, and the citizens turn aimless, starting with the most sensitive and intelligent.
Inversion. In a collapsing civilization, the actual goal of results in reality is replaced by a social goal, which consists of doing things that are approved of by others. This leads to inversion, or the changing of definitions and goals to be the opposite of what they once were. Good becomes whatever flatters most, even though that is bad; heroism becomes victimhood; benevolence becomes cleaning up after a crime instead of preventing it.
Pretense. An awakened person in the last stages of a civilization will notice that most people around them are pretentious, holding forth as if they are a gift to humanity and nature alike. This is projection and preemptive passive aggression that allows people to act as if they are victims when interrupted despite the fact that they are acting in an exploitative way. Pretense is required to conceal the actuality of their behavior, and enables them to fend off criticism despite it being well-deserved.
Ugliness. Healthy societies produce beauty, pleasure, goodness and honesty. Dying societies cannot do this, so they produce novelty and freakishness as a way of garnering attention, and then claim those are beauty, inverting the original meaning. When you see brutalist architecture, ugly modern art, crass mass culture and aggressive, unpleasant social interactions, this is a sign of the decline.
On this blog, you will read two general responses to the decay. The first is “clean up, rebuild and restart” and the second could be characterized as “burn it down and start over.” These two are compatible in that they implicate the same action: remove the dysfunctional, collect those who are still able to think realistically (the “remnant”), and then rebuild civilization according to the ways that have worked for time immemorial.
Another way to put this is that an accurate assessment of human existence never changes because humans never change. The pitfalls of our cognition that lead us toward bad acts remain the same, as do the impulses that impel us toward positive acts. Even if we become transhumanist super-geniuses, the same struggles will afflict us. Much as the cosmos might be seen as a struggle between creation and emptiness, the soul of the thinking animal — human or not — will always be a struggle between good and evil (hubris, narcissism, individualism, solipsism and egoism).
For that reason, we do not face this problem blind. We are not struggling against the gods, but ourselves; we do not struggle against an ideology, but the human mental mistake of which that ideology is an example. Our goal is not to defeat evil, but to separate from it, and by our own improvement to thrive, such that the evil fades into the background by virtue of being irrelevant.
Our first step is to discard loyalty to the dead and dying. Take those national flags and throw them in the fire. If there is a war, make sure you do not fight. Anything you do which strengthens the dying system will only prolong its suffering and yours. Give it as little money, time and power as possible, and sabotage it at every turn.
That outlook proves entirely compatible with the idea of rebuilding. When a forest becomes overgrown, a fire sweeps through and destroys all that is weak, parasitic and irrelevant. The vines that choke the trees, being weaker than the trees, burn. All take some losses, but those things that are enduring remain and then regrow, newly freed from encumbrances.
Recognize that most institutions and many people merely serve to impede this process and must go. Yes, the Other must be relocated; big deal — the bigger problem is within, and lies in those who are our people on the surface but not in the soul or mind. These entryists weaken us by appearing to be of Us, and yet, working against us because of their moral or mental weakness.
Apply ancient mental technique to your quest: envision a renewed Western Civilization and visualize us getting there by discarding the bad and keeping the good, then nurturing the good until it covers everything else. Imagine the shopping malls not aflame, but being replaced after the fire. Focus on the image of the civilization you want to see.
This renewed civilization would make note of the fact that modernity was created by egalitarianism, itself a product of the division of hierarchy by conflict between religious leaders and monarchs, caste-mixing and conflict, and destabilization after crises like the Black Death and Mongol invasions. In this light, it becomes clear what to discard from modernity.
Uniting our past civilization with the best knowledge of modernity, namely the study of organizations and psychology, we can envision a futurist traditionalist society as follows:
Aristocracy. The best of our people are entrusted with wealth, property and power. This occurs in a cascade from kings through lesser lords. Every locale has a lord who is responsible for final decisions.
Wise elders. In each community, an informal group of wise elders is chosen whose goal is to be the memory of the community and to make helpful suggestions on everything from placement of businesses to potential partners in marriage. They handle civil actions as well.
Anti-work. Jobs are replaced by roles, in which each person has not only certain responsibilities and privileges, but a unique position in the local landscape and a calling, or a skill they develop. This requires us to be less efficient and decentralize industry and food production to some degree.
Culture. Our society becomes strongly nationalistic, including only Us with all Other relocated generously. Almost all regulations and detail-oriented laws are rejected, replaced by cultural norms and standards which allow people to collectively ostracize violators. No one has a right to live anywhere; those who exhibit the values of the community have a place.
Capitalism. No subsidies or wealth redistribution exist. Instead, people are able to offer products and services on the market, as regulated by cultural norms and local lords. Inequality is viewed not as a linear competition for money, but natural to a hierarchy both vertical and horizontal in nature.
Caste. We recognize the natural divisions in people by intelligence and character, and assign to them familial roles that persist through the generations except in case of getting a “bad egg.” The upper castes become the arbiters of culture and tastes, which enables them to influence aesthetics and through it, values.
Technology. Our society fears no technology, but insists that every technology fit within our purpose and values. Grants and commissions are used to separate innovators from the workforce so that they may focus on their ideas, even if these have no immediate monetary value.
Purpose. Civilization requires that we have purpose, which is an ongoing and immutable goal in which we can always improve qualitatively without shifting approaches, a quantitative approach. At first this is simply to cast off the bad, select the good, and use that as a basis for rebuilding.
Family. The fundamental unit is no longer the individual but the family. Our goal is to have each person be integrated in one of these, or heading in that direction, at all times, and to that end, families and family-directed activities are given precedence. Courtship replaces dating, love replaces casual sex.
Aesthetics. Instead of aiming for materially-deduced quantities like efficiency and convenience, we act from moral imperatives and aesthetic sensibilities, building a society that is a pleasure to live in as our first and greatest goal. From that come all other good things, including technology and quality leadership.
Religion. Our aristocrats are also our religious leaders, and they lead by example and argument, not by force. This enables those who can believe to understand the metaphysical underpinning of reality, while allowing the others the time they need to come to that point if they can.
Leisure. We, as a people, are not a means-to-an-end of ourselves; we are an end in ourselves, as a means of being a means-to-an-end of our principles which create our civilization. Through this, we do not sacrifice ourselves, but better ourselves, as an integral part of the ecosystem of our culture and civilization.
In the penetralia of our hearts, we know what we want: a rising civilization, happy families, pleasant social interaction, the ability to explore ideas and space, honorable and moral standards in our hearts. All that stands between us and that is the illusion of equality which keeps us atomized and withdrawn.
We have not had this for many generations, and this tells us that collapse has occurred and we are no longer in a phase of resisting decline and conserving, but in a mode of having to tear out the bad and rebuild from the good. This painful recognition, while off-putting, provides us a doorway through which to stride in order to inherit our future.
Currently, the world blazes on as Left and Right alienate each other and separate. This is not a new development, so much as the finally visible effect of a development that has long been intensifying, so subtly it went unnoticed for the most part.
This development is the knowledge that Right and Left are incompatible. They want equality; we want order. Their method is a single big theory; we use many observations of a nature we assume is ultimately inscrutable to us. They want freedom; we want purpose, meaning and significance.
Nothing can knit those two together.
As a result, the world is burning. The system which we thought was solid has fallen apart, and revealed its essence as ideas which to most of us are broken and useless. Even more, it has shown us our future, and it looks like a new Soviet Union with consumerism grafted on. We want out, both for practical reasons and reasons of the soul.
It is time to enjoy watching the world burn. As it existed before, it was a horror living on the accomplishments of the past as it bastardized each one into fast food, reality television and special snowflake politics. All that was good at its core was gone, leaving a cash cow milked by cynical leaders who knew they could control a crowd with emotionally appealing lies.
That old world needs to go up in smoke. It failed. It failed first by losing its sense of yearning and potential, and second by killing off all in our spirit that made us great as a people. The intelligent, no longer rewarded and aware of the disaster around them, faded into history. The neurotic prole mob surged forward.
Watching this world burn is fun and gratifying. This is the world that has for so long oppressed the best so that the mad horde can indulge its fantasies. It elevated proles to kings, and liars to leaders, and shattered our faith in ourselves and our future. It threw us into pointless jobs of unparalleled tedium, bureaucracies of cruel indifference, and “education” of rote misery.
Its age has passed and we are into a new age in which we will “re-de-centralize” humanity. That is: instead of trying to create a global community of one population moving toward progress/Utopia through Leftist ideals, we will become many small groups who do not interact much with each other. People will focus on life more than politics or economics.
Humans have a built in self-destruct mechanism. The more we do what we think is good, the more we destroy ourselves. We do not need safety and guaranteed acceptance, the two things that people desire; we need purpose, fairness and a sense of who we are. That cannot occur to humanity as a whole, or even large political blocs. It happens to tribes, communities, ethnic nations and regions.
What we tend to think of as good — peace, equality, plenty, uniformity — are the things that destroy us. They eliminate our striving and subjugate us with low standards. They take away our need for conquest, creation and dreaming. The things we fear are in fact good because the save us from falling into the void of ourselves.
War is good. Intolerance is good. Elitism is good. Struggle is good. Exclusion of those who fail to meet standards is good. We only feel a sense of existential pleasure when our time is given for something worth sacrificing for, and not when we are merely striving for increase in material capacity. We need meaning, and meaning comes from struggle.
All that we thought was good was human projection designed to make us feel “safe,” which is a word for not needing to adapt and being accepted as we are, therefore not needing to strive. That in turn replaces all legitimate goals with standardized ones, like a manual for climbing Mount Everest instead of discovery. We have made ourselves bored, and that has made us hate ourselves.
As the world order of liberal democracy collapses in itself in a chorus cacophony of wailing parasites, our minds turn toward the future. We are not interested in saving the old, and in fact want to see it ablaze. That fire can then fuel our hearts as we race toward things we actually desire in our souls, giving us a sense of something worth doing again and the seed of our regeneration.
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?