Posts Tagged ‘tradition’

Hip Media Companies Becoming The Establishment Is Part Of The Decline Cycle

Sunday, October 8th, 2017

At some point in this life, you will be thrust into the role of a salesman. Maybe it is your first job, when the boss tells you to take the floor and see if you can clear a pallet of some novelty gadget. Or you will have to convince your elderly parent to enter the nursing home. Even at the committee, at work or church, you will have to sell others on ideas.

All salesmanship boils down to converting ideas into images, and allowing the disparity between what the customer sees and what you know to be concealed, so that they see the upsides and minimize the downside. This used car has low miles (been in the shop most of its life), fancy styling (please do not look at the engine), and you can spent the money you save on other things (like repairs).

In the 1960s, some hip young kids sold us a bill of goods. They wanted to take on The Establishment, which they saw as the old and calcified conservative order of their parents, and so they pitched themselves as having a new way of living — politics, lifestyle, values, customs — which was better than the old.

People being inherently gamblers, and afraid of being left behind if others adopt the new and succeed with it, followed them and handed power over to them. This was a scam, since the “new way” was really reheated Bohemian, beatnik and socialist tropes with all restrictions removed, basically just anarchy with paychecks, which enabled this new generation to cut the cost of maintaining civilization and instead, absorb that as wealth.

At the heart of it, their actual goal was to get back at their parents, who by adopting a “we are better because we are free” mentality to fight the Nazis and Commies, had made themselves into insufferable prats who concealed their vicious self-interest behind self-serving justifications. The new generation figured they could do that, too, but take out all the stops, and became the wealthiest in history.

Eventually that generation grew up and hit their 40s and 50s just like The Establishment before them. And now, this new generation were the ones enforcing their vision of the world on others, and fearful of any deviating perspective. This happened in the 1990s during the Bill Clinton years and brought out the worst in the West, including an acceleration of broken policies like diversity and feminism.

The kids who grew up in this time knew nothing except the new 1960s-style order, and so they rewarded whatever fit this paradigm. As a result, “millennials” became the most dogmatic generation the West has ever known: they saw it as normal to “no platform” bad ideas as defined by their 1960s teachers, and avoided anything but “safe spaces” where their 1960s-good ideas were enforced.

Those born from 1990 onward were able to vote in the first election that put Barack Obama in power, believing that by vanquishing capitalism, racism and inequality, they would make a better world. As if the universe were laughing, it gave them a ruined economy, even more tool-like jobs, race riots, declining prestige, failing currency and social instability everywhere, especially in dating and marriage.

The generation coming after them — really, the kids of Generation X, who were born from the 1970s onward and took their time getting married if they did at all — saw this disaster unfold and backed away from it. To them, the 1960s order (the “Revolution”) was not just the norm, but The Establishment, and if the old Establishment had been fascist, the new one was incompetent and mind-controlling through endless propaganda in movies, news, books, magazines, and even the internet.

Now we get to see what this new Establishment is like as soft censorship becomes the norm:

[Google] updated its search algorithm Thursday to promote authoritative news sources at the top of search results, according to a person familiar with the matter. YouTube has been working on the change for months, but decided to release it early after conspiracy videos surfaced on its site about the Las Vegas shooting.

…YouTube, which is owned by Alphabet, is the latest tech company to come under fire for propagating misinformation about current events, specifically the shooting in Las Vegas. Facebook and Google have also been criticized for featuring unreliable stories and sources following the shooting. For instance, Google linked to threads from online message board 4chan in its Top News results that identified the wrong person as the shooter.

Soft censorship uses private actors and social norms to enforce ideological conformity. It is different from hard censorship, which occurs when governments ban ideas, burn books and arrest dissidents. Soft censorship is nearly impossible to diagnose and oppose because it is herd behavior, where a swarm of independent activists invade all institutions and covertly exclude any different views, which allows them to create a false consensus and then exclude those other views as improper, impolite, antisocial or “wrong.”

And so now, a great inversion comes. We remember the conservatives of the 1950s as the people who were dedicated to boring jobs, shaking their fists at rock ‘n roll hoodlums, demanding that we all toe the line for antiquated notions of morality and social order. Now we have the generation after them, living on through obsolete rock ‘n roll dreams, demanding that we be essentially Good Communists for the New Establishment.

This shows us a historical cycle in real time. A truth of how to live is found, and a great society arises from it. When it comes under attack, its advocates become reactive, and stop looking forward in order to defend the shrinking pool of what they have. The few who would rather think toward the future get brushed aside because their ideas are too nebulous to those focused on the here and now, and so the battle commences between those who want something novel, as a way to feel better about the decline, and those who in resisting the decline have forgotten the reasons why things were done as they were.

The two sides grow more shrill and strident until those offering something new win out because what existed has become very dull and ugly, concerned more with obedience than results, and then the cycle crosses its median and ends up on the other side, where what was once rising is now falling and in contrast, what opposed it is rising. This continues for a time, but has accelerated matters because it has sided with decay, and so soon, reveals itself as even more empty than what was being defended.

At this point, the only question that remains is how to get out of the small cycle — an epicycle — of novelty versus convention, and instead to get to that starting point where civilization begins anew. There is no “saving the world” in this, since as is apparent to almost everyone, it will involve a few who understand what must be done breaking away from the rest, hopefully driving those failed people into the third world where they can be genetically absorbed and thus, no longer capable of subverting our civilization from within.

We realize we are starting from square one. This means bad things and good things. The bad things include that we cannot trust anything, and that we must remove most of what we see, and most of the people… the good things are that we can make a great civilization, and leave this depressing servitude to herd opinion behind, and that people are ready for extreme change.

How extreme? We are looking at escaping an entire historical era, and rejecting modernity. This means that government, corporations, equality and other standards of our lives are going to fail, replaced by something entirely new to us. What does it look like? We do not know; we are going to figure it out as we go, knowing our destination but not the path. This means exploration of alternatives:

Myself, I would like to actually win and live in a world without politics, protests, race wars, pressure-groups and globalists. I would like a world where every people has their monarch and every monarch works to make his people as powerful and prosperous as they can be. However, if that is going to happen, we have to learn what works and what does not.

We cannot simply go back to exactly the way things used to be because, the way things used to be ended in disaster (if they had not, we would be conservatives rather than reactionaries). There must be some adjustment. Don’t be just like what used to be, strive to be better. In order to do that, I can see no alternative but working to change the culture, change the ideas and values of people.

At the end of the day, our enemy is not people or groups, but ideas. The individualism of The Enlightenment,™ which separated individuals from social order and natural law, has fallen. People are ready to give up on the daily ritual of trying to force this upon a world which clear does not support it. They are looking for something new.

When a cycle nears its close, all events accelerate, because the momentum toward that end has reached its maximum. We are now in that phase. Although by day we rely on democracy and equality, inside we know that it will not last, and that our actual goal is to find something better. No one knows what that will look like, yet, but we know that staying with the current regime will lead us to doom.

Right now, we are in the midst of vast upheaval, as all that was considered safe and right about the liberal democratic order fades, leaving us with no alternative but to explore less socially-controlled options, as exhibited by “populist” platforms which oppose the globalist, egalitarian and liberal democratic postwar world order:

What have changed are the political fault lines that have driven the debate since the early 1980s. Until now, the ideological divides between the parties were largely differences around social issues, defense spending and trade, as well as tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Today, the central issue has become populism as voters have moved away from the two political parties and increasingly self-identified as independents.

We are no longer in the zone of fighting over issues; we are in combat over the direction of our society itself. This change will be more radical than we can conceive, at this time, because it consists of a fundamental shift where the Establishment that won in the 1960s is being deposed, and with it the 500-year tradition of its ideas is being thrown out on the street.

As part of this inversion, the anti-Establishment of days past has become the new Establishment, and the rebels of former years have become the people defending the system “as it is,” which is a charge usually leveled at conservatives. Instead, conservatives have turned toward a defense of what came before the the anti-Establishment movement of the 1960s, but it is not enough.

Right and Left, in a democratic political system, become reactions to the situation as it is at that moment, which means their ideas are always relative to what immediately preceded them. One group acts, then the other reacts, then the reaction to that resembles the original action, but that action was made relative to the status quo before it, so there is never any centering on eternal and timeless truths.

People are turning toward tradition — monarchy, caste, culture, nationalism, hierarchy, qualitative thinking, and a transcendental vision — because of a need to re-orient toward what is true, not merely what is true relative to the current situation. If we want to escape the Establishment/anti-Establishment drama, we need to escape political fault lines entirely and focus on reality.

Children of Humanity

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017

by D.A.R.G.

I. Children are the Future

As with most slogans that are thrown around nowadays, the idea that “the children are our future” is understood in all its implications by a tiny minority only; the rest not takes it as a pretty-sounding phrase unblinkingly, as a rule and expecting someone else to lead them or do something about it. This is no different than with other things, except that, in modern times common people not only want to be told what they should do, but they also want to have their “rights” (whatever they feel they are entitled to, which more often than not is caprice).

In the West, children are thought as little new automatons who must be indoctrinated in the right way, as per the myth of the blank slate and equality, so that they grow up knowing how to self-indulge in the proper ways. Freedom is not so much a reality as an afterthought and a fantasy dangled in front of everyone long enough so as to entrance them, only to then continue to ask for subservience. So is the child reared with the concepts of liberty, free will and conscientiousness while he is taught to be afraid of nature and to run into the arms of social norms made specially to nurture and foster delusions.

In the East, children are thought as beasts of burden for their parents, their ancestors and society as a whole. Fetishists of the Far East will often look upon this as wisdom, when in practice what it really means is the perpetual enslavement of humanity in the service of the ideology of civilization and order: a metaphysical and cultural totalitarianism. Rest is reserved only for those who have done their duty, and it may only be truly found in old age after a person has gone through a life of unblinking and mindless toiling in terror of not having enough for old age. Some may say something similar happens in the West, but they know little of how intense and to what degree this permeates Far Eastern culture.

In truth, children should thought as neither little automatons to be programmed or as the workers that should maintain the delusions of society. They are neither the means to the future nor the inhabitants of said future, but rather the future itself. It all may sound like a lot of meaningless word-flinging, but when thinking about each of these concepts, the reader will find that they imply very different things. Furthermore, when seen under a holistic light that examines the causes of problems beyond the sphere of human social concerns, considering children as the future in themselves moves us away from ideology and into a more open-minded problem solving mode that sees them as part of larger natural system on which they are dependent as inhabitants and not as owners with “rights.”

The Family as a Means to Happiness

One of the greatest tragedies of modern thought is the ignorant, egocentric and solipsistic idea that the highest good for a human being is the search for happiness above anything else. The only condition is that the person should not directly cause any harm to any other human being (animals do not matter to these people, in general, or the rest of the planet so long as they can keep extracting what they want from it); I say “directly” because such people refuse to see beyond their noses when considering the impact of their decisions over the natural system as a whole. Who cares if society as a whole has already burdened the planet to the extreme with an overpopulation asking for more and more, I still have the right to create more human beings because that will make me happy, right?

The capricious production of children to fill ego voids creates adverse situations in an era when humans have shielded themselves from the ways nature has of controlling population. These impede the ideal or proper rearing of children themselves, bringing them to an overcrowded and unnatural world to live in the temporal comfort and delusion of modern human urban life. Not is life lived by and for material things that do not matter, but the real, the universe itself, is regularly ignored or thought of as a background to the ‘reality’ of human self-absorbed consumption and comfort at the expense of everything else.

What is worse, the stupidity of the de facto “right to reproduction” has gone so far as to tacitly encourage the spread and proliferation of genetic defects. To be fair, this is one of the side-effects of civilization itself as it shields humans from the consequences of poor breeding and excessive survival. You can see, for instance, the degenerate state of the general Chinese population that probably comes as a result of too-long a time as a surviving civilization: what in the West are considered genetic defects (limbs of considerably different lengths, cross-eyes and considerable impairment of eyesight, and more) are the norm among the Chinese.

Civilization in its softening aspects and Crowdism is entirely to blame, and only a drastically more conscientious approach to how we handle our long mis-used power can make for it.

The family as the nucleus of human society must have a transcendental goal whose focus must be the holistic health of all. That is, none of the reasons why it is started or why rules are implemented should be separate from a consideration of their ultimate effect in the long run; this probably requires a wise leader to be in charge, and a certain degree of empirical knowledge of psychology and biology.

Tradition as a Means of Conscious Evolution

In the interest of pushing forth an idea that is both new, and yet old as well, we can propose a way of treating the family, children, nurture and heredity that may yield better results than the blind goose chase for “happiness” has shown. Having understood that forming families is not without heavy consequence in the environment, the community and the future of the human world as a whole, anyone with the courage and interest in striving towards the better should acknowledge the need for some manner of control, even if the words “breeding” and “eugenics” are too emotionally charged for them at this time.

Setting the bases for a Tradition or culture for a new human being, we could start by saying that whatever the teachings are, they should be taught but not pre-conditioned; brainwashing techniques have been the norm in many civilized societies, for it mangles and shapes the individual to the interests of that group, however arbitrary they are. We can see how individual enlightenment and improvement are always at odds with that way of imposing things, since they individual may have to invest a very long period of time de-programming itself before a journey of discovery and development can truly start — even if what is discovered is exactly the same that said tradition was attempting to teach.

Most of a community’s laws should be based on a cultural consensus rather than a Federal kind of set of statutes; the group should be allowed to shape its views on all kinds of sensitive subjects, while an Imperial force should, if in existence, regulate grander issues pertaining the long-view of things and to function as a spiritual reference that moves little through time (such was the original meaning and function of Imperium, rather than an “ancient Federal state”).

Another key aspect that should form an integral part of our new way of guiding human beings in a new era should be a realist awareness about ecology and as human as both an animal and as a creature that has overstepped the boundaries of its natural past; which overstepping now places a heavy burden of responsibility over us, since we have in our hands the power of utterly destroying everything: ourselves and the rest of the biological systems on the planet.

What should be emphasized here is that the actual learning that matters for holistic purposes is that which is individually discovered; knowledge that is attained through experience and personal intellectual effort, rather than handed over as something to be accepted without questioning or as a formula, has an visible effect beyond the simple utility of that knowledge.

The present is a cultural teaching methodology that encourages the creation of opportunities for experiences early on in the life of a child, while at the same time leading them to seek guidance in a way that this teaching is not imposed.

There are several direct consequences which might be the cause of objection in the reader, the first of which may be the dangerous and perhaps apparently unstable nature of it all. A considerable portion of the individuals might never look for guidance, some out of a greater sense of independence and self-reliance, and the majority of these out of inadequacy and incompetence. The first would excel, and the second would be culled by our allowance of natural selection to play a role within our Tradition. Those who did seek advice would form a third group that may or may not succeed in following the advice and applying it in a successful way.

The aim of this kind of selection system is to create generations of individuals that are increasingly self-reliant and aware of both their place and relation to the species and to the wider biological and energetic spheres; individuals that are increasingly cooperative towards what is good (defined within a context and not dogmatically) out of conscientiousness and a natural tendency towards balance rather than out of superimposition and the fear-mongering.

The idea linked to this is that no matter how widely individually-discovered paths become, the most successful must ultimately converge in the larger scheme of things. If anyone points to the present system and conditions as relatively successful, we need only point out where the breeding style and energy consumption schemes in overpopulation of the present are taking us.

At the present and in the current state of affairs, the increasing dependency of individuals and communities on governments and environments that isolate them from a natural way of life (and thus less direct contact with the consequences of their actions), along with the further encouraging the breeding of even more dependent individuals while ostracizing those who seem too strong and independent, may lead only to a slow and smooth decadence akin to putrefaction in life and a death without resurrection.

Radical Traditionalism

Wednesday, September 28th, 2016


Sometime around the year 2000, the work of Julius Evola reached public consciousness, and thanks to writers like Bill White, Radical Traditionalism entered the right-wing lexicon. This is a philosophy more than a political view, but fits neatly into the New Right idea that culture must be the generative actor for change which will manifest in politics and other areas.

Radical Traditionalism is based on the work of Réné Guénon and Aldous Huxley, and describes the eternal practice of humankind that creates an awareness of the metaphysical world around us in parallel with the physical, and from that, produces a type of civilization that is conducive to Golden Ages.

Those who have read this blog for some time know that it is concerned with two fronts: first, arresting the decline of the West by crushing the Left by any means necessary, and second, a zeal for restoring the greatness of Western Civilization at its height and surpassing it. Radical Traditionalism addresses the second more than the first, but serves as a useful target for those seeking a reason to undertake the first despite the near-suicidal risk.

One of the more compelling summaries of Radical Traditionalist thought comes to us from Tyr journal:

  1. Resacralization of the world versus materialism.
  2. Natural social hierarchy versus an artificial hierarchy based on wealth.
  3. The tribal community versus the nation-state.
  4. Stewardship of the earth versus the “maximization of resources.”
  5. A harmonious relationship between men and women versus the “war between the sexes.”
  6. Handicraft and artisanship versus industrial mass-production.

This corresponds to a definition of Tradition from Huxley:

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

  1. The phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness–the world of things and animals and men and even gods–is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
  2. Human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
  3. Man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
  4. Man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

How is it that a raging realist and nihilist can come to embrace the immanent? The basics are found in rejection of solely material existence, including social control, to discover that reality has qualitative dimension:

When we look at nihilism and radical traditionalism, what jumps out at us is that both are ways of negating the values we have in a modern time and returning to a cosmic order based on the actual function of our reality. There is no morality in either that places the individual higher than a noble task; the opposite is true, since a nihilist recognizes that morality is not inherent and basically wishful thinking by those who fear they might succumb to violence. Radical Traditionalism, like nihilism, emphasizes a quieting of the internal dialogue over how to value life, and takes life at face value: things are simply what they are.

The solution to modernity espoused here, used in abbreviated reference as the four pillars, incorporates Radical Traditionalism as it does the intersection of ideas found in the New Right, Alt Right, Reaction and Neoreaction. Its goal is to create the type of society that — independent of $current_year — creates a Golden Age for my people, the Western Europeans.

As with most things in life, there is no single theory which addresses all problems uniformly such that it can be applied at any level as if a universal truth. The only universal is reality, and its structures are known only to those who can pursue them. But what Radical Tradition suggests is that instead of reacting to material reality, and letting its immediate demands guide us, we strive for what is inconvenient but beautiful, eternal and excellent.

Through that mechanism, we gain access to the many different and visually dissimilar methods required to have a civilization which rises above the rest of history. There is no single ideology or system that can save us. But through discovery of Tradition, we can discover a wider reality and in that, find our answers.

New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism In Postmodern Europe by Michael O’Meara

Friday, June 3rd, 2016


Arktos Media has re-issued Michael O’Meara’s attempt to codify the New Right through a vastly detailed, extensively researched exploration of the underlying issues and the opinions of far-right writers on them. This new edition updates the original which has found readers in many of us for its precise analysis of the miscellany of New Right theory.

The strength of this book is that it crawls deep into details, and relates them to a bigger picture; its weakness is missing the reasoning behind that bigger picture, and reducing it to a compressed surface assessment like a news story, reporting on what others have said but not the structure of their thoughts. However, for exploration of any given position in depth, this book is unparalleled.

Without a great political project envisaging a European imperium, New Rightists fear EU-style unification will end up turning the Continent into a gigantic, soulless Switzerland, enhancing, perhaps, its economic prowess but leaving it powerless in the field of international relations. Such a Europe would, in fact, do nothing to alter its status as an “American valet” and a Lebensraum for the non-white Muslim peoples of the South. Against the tepid unitary ideas of the Brussels shopkeepers, who weigh Europe’s future in metric tons of steel and units of exports, not history and culture, the imperial idea appeals to what is most exalted in, and hence innermost to, the heritage identitarians champion. (235)

O’Meara has a talent for putting these abstractions into concrete detail. Much of the book explores such practical conflicts: the collision between a liberal vision and a naturalistic reality in which Machiavellian realpolitik trumps the warm feelings and socially pleasurable noises of egalitarian dogma. New Culture, New Right digs into the conflict brewing in our society and the splintering point at which one must choose a side, and gives numerous tangible examples of what the Leftist vision will entail.

The book serves as an encyclopedic view into the historical background to right-wing positions, and where it is short on theory, it is long on facts and citations, as the hundreds of detailed footnotes attest. Expertly edited, this book displays efficiency and grace of language, making it a joy to read, which is essential given how dense much of this material is. In its exploration of details, it avoids many of the standard tropes and instead looks toward a more historically-coherent series of explanations for the events of history and the successes of the Left.

While Northern Europeans did eventually succumb to the Nicene Christianity of the Catholic Church, it was not through any elective affinity with its beliefs, but rather because the Holy See had convinced their “long-haired kings” of the diplomatic advantage of doing so, or, as in Ireland, its sophisticated Roman forms gave new life to native Gaelic culture, or else, they were forced at sword point. Typically, these pagan “converts” saw Christ as a victor over death, not the suffering redeemer, whose mission was to expiate human sinfulness. (126)

This kind of precise correction to casually spoken and convenient broader conclusions is where New Culture, New Right excels. For most people, Christianity either conquered Europe through some conspiratorial action designed to burn the pagan texts and enslave everyone, or was a moment of enlightenment that separates us from the dismal past. This viewpoint makes more sense: Christianity was a new, more powerful administrative and social tool, and so it was adopted, especially as it was not substantially different from pagan beliefs at the time.

Where New Culture, New Right falls short is in the tendency to allow broader assumptions to go unchallenged, but that is because this is not a book of philosophy per se but a book of politics that addresses granular and not broad assumptions among the Right. It might be seen as the most elaborate form of scene policing ever: a strident cry for balance, sanity and introspection in a Right that inevitably will rise as the Left collapses under the weight of its own delusions.

Against this deculturating rationalism, New Rightists appeal to René Guénon (1886-1951), whose “philosophy of Tradition” has had a major influence on them. Guénon (who was also an accomplished mathematician) claims material quantities are the most ephemeral and insignificant facet of reality — and are not even purely quantitative. Every quantitative substance, as Descartes himself acknowledged, has texture, smell, taste, color, form and other qualitative features, which are meaningless only to the quantifying intelligence. Similarly, if the “objective world” were made up solely of material extensions, it would not only be an undifferentiated homogeneity, but unmeasurable, for measurement is a function of order and order a property of quality. To conceive of quantity without its qualitative features, he argues, is like conceiving of substance without its defining essence. From this Gu&ecuate;nonian perspective, quantification is seen as emptying the world not just of what makes it meaningful to man, but of what makes it human — insofar as it reduces the world’s incomparable expressions to abstract calculations indifferent to all that is distinct in real life. (79)

For the average modern person — mostly driven by bodily desires, able to think in a single-layer flat hierarchy of categories only, and motivated more by personal fear than desire for greatness — the Right boils down to Ayn Rand plus Ronald Reagan: business as the cornerstone of society, strong defense and patriotism, with a smattering of social conservative-ish ideas like death penalties, anti-abortion and borders that flap closed twice a day for maintenance. This shows us an insight into the Right which is fundamental and was always there, but never makes it into mainstream discourse, because the Left (and the cuckservatives) realize that this would upset the precarious balance of power in our democratic system.

This passage also shows where New Culture, New Right meets its limitations. On a philosophical level, the above is convenient nonsense based on clever categorical logic but nothing more; it is an extension of the modern error that sees us use our method of measurement as a projection by which we perceive nature. Even more, all of what is argued can be said more clearly and better with more direct arguments: reducing the qualitative experience of nature guarantees a growth-based strategy for producing identical clones, like manufacturing or an ant colony. Writers have covered this downside of industrialization as a mentality (once also called “Progress”) for centuries.

It is for reasons such as the above that I say New Culture, New Right is a great book for correcting many of the illusions on the Right, and all of you should read it on that basis. Note that the errors mentioned above are not those of Mr. O’Meara, but of Guénon, and O’Meara faithfully reports them as should be done in a treatise of this nature. Expertly edited, this new edition is a correction and update to the first and not a radical departure, so my comments on that edition remain in force.

New Culture, New Right will not be a gentle read. It is dense and tackles nearly every philosophical issue, at the level of tactics and not strategy, that we encounter in our modern era. Highly literate, it backs up its analysis with extensive citations and detailed analysis, translated into highly readable and fluid prose, as you can see above. Even more, its spirit is healthy, youthful and refreshing, symbolized best by the quotation from Fred Nietzsche that opens the book:

For institutions to exist there must exist the kind of will, instinct, imperative which is anti-liberal to the point of malice: the will to tradition, to authority, to centuries-long responsibility, to solidarity between succeeding generations backwards and forwards in infinitum…The entire West has lost those instincts out of which institutions grow, out of which the future grows: perhaps nothing goes so much against the grain of the ‘modern spirit’ as this.

The New Right asserts itself at a time when the decline of the West is most visible. It was visible to the top tenth of a percent by intelligence a thousand or two thousand years ago, to the top one percent for the last five hundred years, and to the top ten percent for the last seventy. But now, it has ballooned into something that the top fifth of the population can visualize, and we need cognitive tools that can unwrap the endless justifications, denials, symbolic deflections and rationalizations of the Left. Like Mencius Moldbug, or Thomas Sowell, O’Meara unleashes a toolbox of arguments to fold, spindle and mutilate the gibberish of the Left.

Western civilization is imploding

Friday, August 21st, 2015


Over the generations, a sense of dread has been building: the observation that — despite some things which have improved — our society is heading downward. Its organization, or the pattern of how it holds itself together, is fraying. It is the death of the West.

We all make fun of the old guys who rail about how in their day the steaks were redder and the whiskey sweeter, but perhaps those were merely symbols for an ongoing decay in quality. Quality is measured by the experience as a whole, and not particular items that seem brighter and newer than others.

Over at The Mad Monarchist a new article gives voice to concern about the collapse of the West:

We are at or are fast approaching the point of critical mass for western civilization…The internationalists have the world firmly in their grip and with the United States circling the drain, western civilization is going the same way. Of course, all monarchists know that the USA was never a pure example of western civilization, it has never had any of the high culture of Europe but that is to be expected as it is a branch rather than the tree itself.

…The leaders of the EU have emasculated the countries of Europe to empower their central EU government while also making sure that Europe itself is never significant again. They are all part of the same internationalist clique. They don’t want any European country to be great because that would detract from the European Union and they don’t really want Europe to be great because they have nothing but contempt for European culture, European history and western civilization in general. Some actively want to destroy it while others are just looking out for themselves and willingly go along with those who do want to destroy it to further their own interests.

He makes excellent points and the following notions are designed to harmonize with those, not contradict them.

We do not get to a state such as our present condition without first having lost track of our future. Future is tied to past; past shows us not only what worked and what did not, but also who we are and from that, where we should be going. But that past was rejected in favor of egalitarianism during The Enlightenment™. Egalitarianism states that all people are equal, which means that the individual — not culture, values, philosophy, heritage or social order — determines the future. We base our decisions not on what has worked, or what would be good, but what individuals want to do. This creates a transition to a facilitative society.

Facilitative societies have many problems, but the two largest are the need for control, and the passivity of the population. When each person does whatever they want, there is no balance in social order nor is there a central idea to which people “harmonize” or find themselves in resonance with and attempt to fulfill. Morality would be one example of this type of order. Control in turn creates passivity. Citizens are accustomed to doing whatever they want unless stopped, but also become familiar with correction by their ideological leaders. As a result, they do not act toward any purpose, but instead flit around and do nothing of import unless explicitly told to do otherwise. The far extreme of this is what happens in authoritarian societies where people refuse to act unless commanded because the risks of unauthorized action are too great, and the state will step in at some point and tell them what to do anyway. Like children of an overbearing parent, they wait for this correction and achieve nothing in the meantime.

Control-based societies become miserable places. As the 21st century has taught us, even when “free” and “tolerant” places they become tyrannical because those in power — or those who want to join them — must manufacture a constant series of ideological crises in order to keep motivating the population. A facilitative society has no objectives, therefore must style every change as a “war” or a defensive action. This self-pity mentality spreads to the population at large. Between the constant war for ideological clarity, and the general apathy of the population to everything else, decay results and the society plunges downward into a spiral of despair. Eventually it loses all social order and becomes a third-world style society, unable to organize itself to have public hygiene, rule of law, freedom from corruption and even social order itself.

The origin of this decay begins with egalitarianism (or “equality”) which is itself a form of individualism, or the demand by the individual that society support him in his choices without a corresponding investment by the individual in society. All of the subsidy states — socialism, communism, and even consumerism which is capitalism supported through low-return consumer purchases funded by state welfare programs — are based in this form of radical individualism. It comes about when societies become “bottom-heavy,” or have many individuals who know nothing about how to run a society who nonetheless demand participation in its decision-making. These individuals band together into a “Crowd,” and through a philosophy of Crowdism develop a sense of victimhood based in self-pity which spurs them to attack their society and convert it into a facilitative society.

Control then becomes required because facilitative societies are chaotic and individuals, acting on radical individualism, tend to externalize the costs of their actions to others. Conservatism arises as a resistance to this movement, but generally fails because its adherents are unable to articulate what they really need, which is an end to the facilitative society. Early experiments in liberalism in France and Russia showed how quickly revolutions turn to ideological enforcement, usually by inventing or discovering enemies, and from that to authoritarianism. Conservative experiments in using this force against liberalism, as seen in Italy and Germany, met with less than shining results because of the inherent control-tendencies of liberal society which prevented the restoration of organic culture.

Opposite the control-based facilitative society is the leadership-based society. This is part of what is called “tradition,” which is a way of viewing the world through both (a) realistic and (b) transcendental viewpoints. These aim to discover methods that work in the real world, but to point them toward “transcendentals” or eternal goals that can never be fully realized and thus can both harmonize and motivate a society without the war/victimhood narrative of egalitarian societies. In these societies, leaders do not “control” their population but actually lead it, meaning that they discover necessary tasks and keep people organized toward transcendental goals. Leadership societies have purpose, and as a result, in them people have roles in which they fulfill parts of the overall ongoing goal. Paul Woodruff refers to the basis of the glories of the past as “reverence,” or an awe and transcendental appreciation for our world, and this seems like an appropriate basis for the combination of strong cultural, religious and moral feeling that traditional societies have.

Perhaps the best definition of tradition comes from Aldous Huxley, who wrote The Perennial Philosophy to detail what is present in such societies. He outlines a mixture of religion and philosophy that serves as a principle of social order and personal order simultaneously:

More than twenty-five centuries have passed since that which has been called the Perennial Philosophy was first committed to writing; and in the course of those centuries it has found expression, now partial, now complete, now in this form, now in that, again and again. In Vedanta and Hebrew prophecy, in the Tao Teh King and the Platonic dialogues, in the Gospel according to St. John and Mahayana theology, in Plotinus and the Areopagite, among the Persian Sufis and the Christian mystics of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance–the Perennial Philosophy has spoken almost all the languages of Asia and Europe and has made use of the terminology and traditions of every one of the higher religions. But under all this confusion of tongues and myths, of local histories and particularist doctrines, there remains a Highest Common Factor, which is the Perennial Philosophy in what may be called its chemically pure state. This final purity can never, of course, be expressed by any verbal statement of the philosophy, however undogmatic that statement may be, however deliberately syncretistic. The very fact that it is set down at a certain time by a certain writer, using this or that language, automatically imposes a certain sociological and personal bias on the doctrines so formulated. It is only the act of contemplation when words and even personality are transcended, that the pure state of the Perennial Philosophy can actually be known. The records left by those who have known it in this way make it abundantly clear that all of them, whether Hindu, Buddhist, Hebrew, Taoist, Christian, or Mohammedan, were attempting to describe the same essentially indescribable Fact.

The original scriptures of most religions are poetical and unsystematic. Theology, which generally takes the form of a reasoned commentary on the parables and aphorisms of the scriptures, tends to make its appearance at a later stage of religious history. The Bhagavad-Gita occupies an intermediate position between scripture and theology; for it combines the poetical qualities of the first with the clear-cut methodicalness of the second. The book may be described, writes Ananda K. Coomaraswamy in his admirable Hinduism and Buddhism, “as a compendium of the whole Vedic doctrine to be found in the earlier Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanishads, and being therefore the basis of all the later developments, it can be regarded as the focus of all Indian religion” is also one of the clearest and most comprehensive summaries of the Perennial Philosophy ever to have been made. Hence its enduring value, not only for Indians, but for all mankind.

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

  1. The phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness–the world of things and animals and men and even gods–is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
  2. Human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
  3. Man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
  4. Man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

Tradition treats reality as fact and includes in that fact a philosophical and metaphysical exploration of the order of life. Julius Evola gave us a hint in “On the Secret of Degeneration”:

If we look at the secret of degeneration from the exclusively traditional point of view, it becomes even harder to solve it completely. It is then a matter of the division of all cultures into two main types. On the one hand there are the traditional cultures, whose principle is identical and unchangeable, despite all the differences evident on the surface. The axis of these cultures and the summit of their hierarchical order consists of metaphysical, supra-individual powers and actions, which serve to inform and justify everything that is merely human, temporal, subject to becoming and to “history.” On the other hand there is “modern culture,” which is actually the anti-tradition and which exhausts itself in a construction of purely human and earthly conditions and in the total development of these, in pursuit of a life entirely detached from the “higher world.”

In a traditional culture, all is viewed by its significance as ideal; in a modern culture, all is material. This does not limit the ideal to the metaphysical alone, because ideas like loyalty, values and morality come first before material convenience. The difference lies in the tendency of traditional cultures to view the significance of acts as if, in Kant’s words, they were to “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The order of nature itself as an idea matters more than material fate or condition. Where a modern culture is pragmatic, a traditional culture views itself through the lens of purpose and in that a sense of the underlying informational order to the universe. When radical individualism takes over, and cultures view themselves through egalitarianism, the idea of individuals deferring to an invisible social order formed of honor, loyalty, duty, culture, values and heritage becomes impossible.

That outlook creates a transcendental effect on a society by which it sacralizes itself not as an end, but as a means to more of the sacred. Like the transcendentals “the good, the beautiful and the true,” a traditional culture aims for the principle of every act and aspect of being. These principles are more important than materiality because, in the view of traditional cultures, they create materiality. Whether this is atheistic or theistic matters little. A society can either idealize the patterns of reality itself, or its own people, and the latter path leads to decay and ruin. On a simple level, when principles such as law, justice, integrity and honor are lost, corruption reigns. On a greater level, when principles such as morality are placed first, it becomes impossible for wholesale abuses in which damages of individual acts are socialized to the group to become valid. Tradition is the opposite of utilitarianism, which argues from what a group feels — statistically, or by majority — benefits them as individuals. As the West has turned from this traditional view, it has plunged into slow but inexorable decline.

While we search today for answers, all of our methods resemble symptomatic or palliative treatment. That is: we do not believe we can strike at the core of our decay, and instead apply intermediates. To reverse our decline, we must first — as Kant reminds us — choose to be good. We must target the transcendentals. With a little thought and some reading of history, we can see that these mandate a society quite unlike our own: ruled by an aristocracy, united by heritage and culture, governed not by laws but by principles and, perhaps most importantly, one that has reverence for life and the fact that there are more important things than convenience and survival. The answer is not as simple as a theocracy, or nationalism, or even cultural reign, but includes all of the above. We must restore our identity as the West not just as a physical group, but as a principle: those who do what is right, no matter how inconvenient, and rise accordingly.

The hatred of the bourgeois

Tuesday, August 11th, 2015


If there is a single thread that runs through the work of philosophers as diverse as Kirkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Evola, it is an extreme level of contempt and disgust for the bourgeois lifestyle.

Kirkegaard thought that comfort and respectability weakened the absolute faith necessary for a striving life; Schopenhauer opined that the lifestyle of the German middle class dealt in unreasonable optimism. Nietzsche resented the patriotism, slave morality and put-on Christianity of Wilhelmine Germany; Heidegger thought that the pursuit of money, family and the accoutrements of a middle class lifestyle distracted us from the few moments we could actually experience Being, instead feeding the Geworfenheit, or random necessities of life. Evola’s first conscious intellectual efforts were as a Dadaist painter, because, as he reflected later on in life, “I always had contempt for the bourgeoisie.” The materialism of the middle class was evidence of the sickening decline into materialism and sentimentality, according to the Italian Perennialist.

These critiques are both valid and wrongly placed at the same time.

There is, as these great men observed correctly, a wrong way to live in this world. We are awash in the artifacts of a civilization that has been revolutionized by the political will of the bourgeoisie writ large. The American Republic itself was the first bourgeois state, enshrining in its founding documents the right to strive towards happiness, to property, and to trade and engage in newspapering and religious functions. Current political debate focuses on which faction can deliver the maximum amount of comfort and wealth to the voter, with the minimum amount of pain. The masses follow das Gerede, the “chatter,” let it consume their lives, and seek only wealth, comfort and sexual satisfaction. The bourgeoisie we think of today is the myopic SWPL, the cheating housewife, the banal neighbor obsessed with the performance of his IRA, the Sunday-morning Christian who signals his faith more than he actually prays, and the ubiquitous Supporter-of-the-Troops. They are all products of this bourgeois impulse.

Clearly, this is a narrow minded and self-defeating way to live, and the philosophers were right about these types of people. They are a sign of the decline, the modern world made manifest. But we all cannot be kshatriya and Brahmins; there always have been, and needed to be, men to till the fields, women to raise children and make the material element of the nation continue. Is there a Traditionalist way to live authentically as a householder that does not degenerate into money-worship?

There is such a path, and the greats have always acknowledged that such a dharma is one of the Traditional ways to exist. Plato defined three castes — the gold, silver and bronze people — each with their role and place in the world. The ancient Aryans had three castes as well, the priests, warriors and the regular folk- those this eventually became the four (or five) castes that we are familiar with through the Varna and the laws of Manu. The Zoroastrian Persians had such a caste as well, the Vastrayosh, or herders of cattle.

So how does one exist as a householder, or bourgeoisie, while seeking some sort of transcendence through the lifestyle?

The first thing is an initiation, or a ritual to set one’s self towards the goal of being a householder in the world. Initiations have largely been lost in the West, but the commitment and the symbolism of the practice is what matters. Consider something difficult or significant that demonstrates commitment to work, family and God.

Secondly, one must strive towards actual traditional values of the householder. These are a balance between work, religious devotion and charity- neither of these should dominate, but all should be engaged in. Work should be done by the sweat of one’s brow, and actually earned through honest means. Transcendent religion needs to be a daily ritual that reminds the man of his place within the cosmic order and connects him symbolically to the transcendent. Charity can be as simple as devoting labor or time to something you believe in.

Finally, the vaisya should seek to cultivate optimistic resilience as their signature trait, what Sikhism calls chardi kala. The householder understands that we live in a cyclical world, but it is his labor and children that carry society forward, long after his death. This is the ultimate optimism- to feel one’s self part of an immortal entity, a race/tribe/society whose physical existence you embody and live. Even during this time of degeneration and suffering one can live knowing that you are the living Remnant, and your people will form the physical nucleus of what is to come.

The Awakening of Miss Prim, by Natalia Sanmartin Fenollera

Sunday, June 14th, 2015


The Awakening of Miss Prim
by Natalia Sanmartin Fenollera
Atria, 2013, 258 pages, $13

Books tell stories; stories describe adventures; adventures relate how the journey changes the traveler because the traveler has changed within. One species of this, the maturation novel, involves a character coming to confront life itself by overcoming fears that it will not contain the ongoing joys of childhood. This character is often seduced away to a false perpetual childhood by social and bohemian factors.

In The Awakening of Miss Prim, a deliberately transparent titled novel, the protagonist has been seduced by modernity itself and its illusions, but instead of becoming lost in dissipation she has become, like the current crop of millennials, isolated behind a wall of high moral standards that amount to a withdrawal from life itself and from the false pleasures offered by distraction. This creates an empty person who insists she is full, and she encounters the challenge of maturation in the form of a small village where people have gone to escape modernity not as a tangible thing but as a mentality. In this village, she finds people do not confront her beliefs, only reveal their hollowness, and has to make a decision to either accept that her new knowledge invalidates her older assumptions and that she must change herself, or retreat into comforting but familiar dysfunctional behaviors.

For this reason, despite the somewhat “female” setting of this book it belongs in the category of books such as Steppenwolf and The Sorrows of Young Werther where the maturation process is used as a metaphor for knowing oneself and through that, becoming realistic or reality-based in one’s own thinking. Because finding truth in modernity more resembles a flight from the accepted, modern people come to this stage later, having lived in confusion for many years, and while Miss Prim, the protagonist, is younger she is not young in the sense of the classic novelistic trope described above. Her named, chosen in the postmodern style, accurately reflects her character: uptight, mostly focused on what she will not do instead of what she aspires to do; defensive, in other words, she hides behind a moral uprightness that excludes life itself as well as bad behaviors. In this village of intelligent life drop-outs, she encounters tradition: people living in a state of balance between nature, God and man. They have encountered a meaning to life itself, and using that principle, extend it outward to all that they do.

Fenollera writes her best material when showing us the readers what it is like to have an all-pervasive tradition and knowledge that completely contradicts what modern science, publicity and popular viewpoints indicate is true, and yet makes more sense when one looks at life as a question of harmonizing disparate elements instead of sorting between the good and the evil.

Women in San Ireneo de Arnois tended to have husbands. It wasn’t compulsory, but it was advisable. And women like Miss Prim seemed naturally suited to marriage. An attractive face, good figure, refined manners, cultured mind — all these gifts indicated the end for which Miss Prim had been created, the ultimate purpose of her existence, was none other than matrimony.

“You’re very kind, but I have no intention of ever getting married,” she said firmly. “I’m not in favor of marriage; for me, it makes no sense.”

The florist smiled very sweetly, surprising the librarian. She had not expected a smile in reply. An angry look, an exclamation of astonishment, a shocked, cutting remark; these would have been appropriate…This was the natural response, the decent reaction in such situations. And Miss Prim, who had been brought up in a household rigidly shaped by discipline, liked people to react as they should.

“I quite agree!” exclaimed the florist at last after a lengthy sigh. “Marriage nowadays has become a simple legal agreement, with all the red tape, those chilly municipal offices and registries, all those prenuptial agreements and laws that debase everything. If I were you and I had to get married in this day and age, I would not sign that. Most definitely not.” (39)

This short passage shows us the divide that Nietzsche illustrated in “On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense”: when a civilization begins dying, the first thing that happens is that the bad actors change the meaning of words and events to fit within the new paradigm. These are fake; reality awaits somewhere outside of this constructed world, the consensual hallucination called social reality. What breaks through the barrier is confronting reality itself, something nowadays people do not do — much as a famous musician once lamented “nowadays black metal” as a trend, fad and fetish — because they are focused on the tokens and not the underlying meaning.

Written in a naturalistic style, the book shows us this new world through the eyes of Miss Prim and the various feminist, egalitarian and modernist tropes she employs as defenses, as she goes to work for a man as his librarian and tutor to his children, who are raised on the Trivium and other aspects of a classical education, but most importantly are encouraged to experience life through a transcendental spirit that connects them with purpose, reverence and creativity. She finds herself amazed at the children, and in awe and sometimes grudging admiration of her tormentor and guide referred to only as the Man in the Wing Chair, and finds herself fighting her own assumptions as she resists the natural beauty of this balanced, fearless place flowing into her soul. As time goes on, it becomes apparent to the reader but not the protagonist how isolated modern people are from all that matters, and how badly we want to see Miss Prim succeed in surmounting the real barriers instead of the distractions, something we scarcely hope for ourselves.

Fenollera is fond of using situation as metaphor. Characters frequently discuss themselves through literature, science or even social tropes, which then inverts to provide the metaphor of the book, which is of an individual escaping the escape from reality and coming to embrace the beauty of life hidden beneath the fear. Witness this exchange:

“The question is not whether they’re good or bad writers, or whether they’re sentimental. The question is whether there was a time when men — great men — read novels written by women.”

“True,” said the Man in the Wing Chair, pushing his seat even farther from the fireplace. “But in my opinion this is for two good reasons. One, a woman publishing a novel still had an allure of audacity; and two, women provided a reasonable but different view of the world. Nowadays women’s writing has lost its capacity to make us change our gaze, look at things in a different way. When I read a novel by a woman I get the impression that the author is doing nothing more than looking at herself.”

Miss Prim stared fixedly at her employer. She was shocked by how easily he maintained all sorts of outrageous opinions. Most people would feel ashamed of thinking, let alone saying, such things. He said them calmly, almost cheerfully. (171)

The Awakening of Miss Prim shows someone reluctantly confronting the need to leave behind the comfortable lies and go deeper both into herself and into her examination of reality. Ultimately it reveals that all of us armchair voyagers are stand-ins for Miss Prim, afraid to leave our convenient mental construct and look at reality as it is and thus fleeing from reality itself into the arms of lies, and as such it provides an enjoyable fast read that cuts to the core of a philosophy of life itself.

Comparing Neoreaction, New Right and Tradition

Friday, April 24th, 2015


When the historical background to a time changes, the beliefs held up by those within it adjust, and usually for the worse as they confuse what was with what is and adjust their idea of what should be accordingly. 226 years after the French Revolution, world liberalism has run into a brick wall, and rightists are re-adjusting orientation as a result.

Although it will not be reported in the media, or discussed by politicians, liberalism has reached a point of failure. Accelerating since the French Revolution, it has achieved all of its aims, and society remains in the grip of the problems the left identifies. “The rich” still have power, the people are still apathetic, the environment is still being ecocided and majorities in every indigenous nation are being genocided. “Equality” has not occurred in our lifetimes, social strife is getting worse as is animosity over “race relations” a.k.a. diversity failing. People are miserable because jobs are pointless, the opposite sex are dismal sluts with no ability to bond through love for anything approximating life, the air is polluted and the water unclean. And the kicker: every Western government is dead broke and spending itself into debt so huge it constitutes a punchline more than policy.

Right now, everything is OK, thanks to the technology, learning, wealth and power built up by pre-liberal Western civilization. We have rule by law, social order and the like. But these things are all in fatal decline because the force that maintains them is fading, and what replaces them will clearly be a third world style society with none of what made the West great. Immigrants will get ripped off by having emigrated to find the same mess they left back home, and the indigenous will be assimilated genetically and neutered culturally, leaving another mixed-race state with third world levels of social disorder, corruption, filth and disorganization. Liberalism is the tombstone of empires.

The mainstream right has avoided tackling this problem head-on mainly because it is composed of two elements, “mainstream” and “right.” Mainstream means that it cannot offend the dominant paradigm of this time, egalitarianism, and for that reason cannot be critical of this civilization as an outsider would, attacking obviously non-functional institutions like democracy, diversity, and equality. It is supported in this by fear of the underground far-right, which tends to be so extreme that it alienates normal people and drives them toward the imperfect but “safe” mainstream variety. As the far right harbors both genuine believers in National Socialism and volkisch philosophy as well as outright sociopaths, it creates what is effectively a border driving the audience back toward liberalism.

The New Right came about as an attempt to revitalize conservatism, both mainstream and underground, with a dose of realism. New Righters predict a collapse of industrial society from many factors both external and internal, and posit instead a strong identitarian community. In deference to the success of the left in the postwar period, the New Right avoids obvious fascist iconography and instead talks about existential issues like mass misery in the face of a society of drudgery, obedience and dysfunction. Unfortunately, however, the New Right also chooses to base itself in a derivation of leftist Social Democrat policies, and in doing so, alienates the anti-socialist right.

Neoreaction came about through the libertarian invention of freedom of association through economics. This idea attacks the liberal moral imperative to create a subsidy state by demanding instead freedom for the individual from the obligation to subsidize others. Once the ideological state is removed, however, there is no reason to avoid corporatism, or treating government like a public service instead of handling it with a quasi-religious reverence and identifying a national population with its government. Neoreaction consists of a number of thought experiments in the form of Socratic dialogues inverted from question to discussion as models, and serves as an introduction for the idea that there may be logical, engineering-style and real-world reasons for rightist policies. Neoreaction struggles however with being at the center of a number of divisive forces because its leftist origins in libertarianism result in an individualism that has its adherents choosing divergent paths, and incorporating outside influences, on the basis of personal desire. This creates the same problem as in mainstream conservatism and leftism which is fragmentation disrupting the idea of any coordinated action.

As the New Right developed, many began looking for a solution outside politics and turned to the writings of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola, who advocated a way of life based on “Tradition.” Although this is not an explicitly political system, it has consequences for all political decisions. The dominant idea of Tradition is that an ineffable truth exists to life itself which societies throughout history have discovered that allows them to rise. This “perennial” or recurring idea rejects the notion that history is linear or that there can be “new” ideas in governance. The truth is known, and we implement it to degrees rather than find new forms. For example, we might say that the present day government is 20% of the way to a traditional outlook, where in healthier times the percentage has been higher. This clashes with the modern idea that history has been a steady progression from a primitive past to a Utopian future, and that our ideas are untried and revolutionary. In fact, Tradition says, they are simply lesser versions of known ideas and will succeed proportionately. Traditionalists do not demand a specific political system but tend to favor pre-1789 ideas like nationalism (ethnic nationalism), monarchism and a union between government, religion and learning.

As Neoreaction obliterates itself by becoming a philosophy of a many interpretations but no centrality, people on the right look toward the next revolution. The issues in content remain how to choose government, which economic system to use, whether to be nationalist or not, and the role of religion. New Righters tend to favor a religious ethnostate, Traditionalists see religion as having to fall into line with an eternal truth descending through the line of kings, and Neoreactionaries favor a version of the modern state which removes the ideological in loco parentis of leftist government. Somewhere in the future a hybrid or compromise must be found if the alternative right is to mobilize itself and, as history suggests will work, influence the mainstream right to the point that it can actually effect change.

This goal in itself is not popular. Among Neoreactionaries, it is common to disclaim the possibility of fixing civilization and to look instead for personal “exit” or co-existence without being corrupted or obligated by the herd. History shows us how this will end, as it always does, in show trials and asset confiscation if not outright theft. New Righters tend to be the most politically-inclined, advocating the creation of separate political parties like Marine Le Pen’s Front National but more fundamentally changing society through a cultural revolution that prepares it for them. Traditionalists are the most far removed, believing in a cultural revolution originating in a type of spiritual awakening among the exceptional, but they are short on methods of achieving their ends.

What crushes these movements is that they are more similar than different. Each new movement struggles to differentiate itself, then runs into internal confusion, and then lapses and the cycle repeats itself. Often they are afraid to admit their fundamentally non-leftist outlook and hope for an appeal to leftists. So far this has created groups of dissident intellectuals and social critics who are influencing the mainstream, but never enough to do more than slowly shift its frame of reference to the right.

I propose a simple method of avoiding pitfalls and a new idea, Futurist Traditionalism, which combines the best of these systems with a new outlook that is both Nietzschean and of the oldest religious and philosophical traditions.

To avoid pitfalls, we must focus on a single word: “the.” The right is currently divided by these, with some seeing the solution as ethno-nationalism, making the basis of our society the church, strictly political methods, and strictly economic methods. None of these are “the” singular solution, but part of a solution, and if the right must purge itself of something it is the strong categorical reliance on one tool to fit all tasks. More likely our response will be a single tool comprised of others. It is also necessary to avoid team players, or those who view politics as a kind of sports event where one side must best the other. The point is to reach a certain design of civilization, and to implement that, regardless of what banner it is done under or what it is called. Politics itself disunites us by the need for teams, categories, issues and other symbols for what actually must be done. It is time to cut out the middleman, and look toward what we seek instead.

Futurist Traditionalism proposes a simple union of all that has worked: mercantile economics, or capitalism without usury, a focus on leadership and goals instead of the methods used to select leaders, a removal of criminal law and its replacement with an economic system of justice, and the creation of an aristocracy of wise elders who will represent the nation in religion, leadership and science/philosophy. In the Futurist Traditionalist view what is essential is balancing the different impulses with the goals of past and future, so that instead of compromise we enforce consistency on all parts of the system. Instead of letting “the system” run by itself, the institution of Futurist Traditionalism is the goals itself, enforced by culture and administered by aristocratic leaders, with otherwise a total lack of formal institutions. By de-formalizing, society would reduce red tape and frustration, but also shifts the burden of choice back onto the citizen. A law enable a citizen to say “I did not violate the law” but under Futurist Traditionalism, the only standard is the results that occurred. Thus if a citizen has no law to hide behind, and must compensate others or society as a whole for any ill effects brought about by his actions.

The “futurist” part of this belief system consists of a desire to use technology for positive ends, even when these are the same methods that make people recoil now. Mass production, gene splicing, giant grocery stores, the internet and other “modern” advances must not only be kept, but advanced using the principle of balance to goals. A Futurist Traditionalist moves forward into the future by advancing the quality of knowledge, and sees technology not as a system or institution in itself, but a series of tools for achieving the goals of the civilization.

To moderns, the primary difference in this society is that it has a military-style purpose at all times. The overall goal is to protect and nurture its people so the civilization as a whole continues rising in quality. This means that criminals, retards, shysters, etc. can be exiled and the community is healthier, and also that every action taken by a citizen can be looked at with the question, “Does this move us closer toward our goals or not?” Nothing exists in a vacuum. Toward that end, Futurist Traditionalism embraces power. Where moderns considered themselves witty to have said “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Futurist Traditionalism recognizes that most people are corrupt because evolution is in effect and we all fit somewhere on a bell curve not just in intelligence but in integrity. Power goes to those who can wield it and to no others. The ideas of democracy and managerial society are both rejected by this act.

A Futurist Traditionalist society might look a bit odd to us at first. For example, in our current society we have speed limits, police to enforce them and courts to judge them. None of these are necessary. A future society might simply make it a cultural standard to throw rotten vegetables at any vehicle that is traveling too fast for the road on which it is going. Liberals will scream, “But what about abuse?” to which future humans will affirm that yes, it sometimes happens, but it is the exception that proves the rule. Most of the time, drivers slow down because they want to avoid the spectacle of being pelted with rotten vegetables, because in a sane/future society, honor and integrity matter more than police fines. The rent-seeking police with their tickets, courts and endless laws could all go away and the problem would be solved at least as well as that extensive system has, without any of the overhead.

This thinking takes us past the conundrum not just of modernity but of the right trapped within modernity, liberating us to think truly “outside of the box.” That box, more than The CathedralTM, is what confines us in modernity because assumptions outside of its control are not tolerated. With the rise of future rightist movements, the nexus of attack will focus on this idea of settled science, known truths, and other fake history created by leftists in order to expand our scope not just to “exit” or participation in a political system, but reforming society and disenfranchising or exiling those who are incompatible so that they can go to the third-world societies that their leftist outlook inevitably produces, and we can not restore a past civilization but rise to new standards of excellence. That is futurism, and it is the basis of Futurist Traditionalism.

Micro-Reactions (1)

Tuesday, April 21st, 2015


Inspired by micro-aggressions, the following are short observations on the nature of the modern world.

1. Infantilization

The method the Baby Boomers used against their children was to infantilize them. This consisted of having them look at life on the level of effects along, ignoring cause. As every cause has an effect, this creates people who know what they want but not how to get it, which keeps them perpetually dependent on the parents (or in loco parentis government) to find out how to do anything. That in turn forces each action they want to take to survive the approval process of the parent. This gives the parents or government more power, but also creates a resentment cycle where people hide anything they actually want and find another way to get it, like teenagers scoring drugs or henpecked husbands cruising for porn or even citizens cheating on taxes with a black market economy.

2. Rand versus Nietzsche

Ayn Rand, while possibly the most cardboard writer, continues to like the movie Idiocracy gain followers because she accurately described the near-term future. Her philosophy of “objectivism” is nonsense, but understandable nonsense; she means “realism” because she realizes that nothing is subjective: interpretation can be disciplined, and lack of discipline or ability is no excuse; choice is not even subjective, because our choice signals to others the quality of our ability to perceive reality. Rand could be seen as an early anarcho-capitalist for her basic solution, which is to get rid of government except for the military and let everything else be private contracts between consenting groups and individuals. She does make a good point, as do the libertarians, which is simply that no person should be obligated to support another — ever. Charity is entirely voluntary or it is theft. On a psychological level, this is important because it signals to the citizen that they are responsible for their own future, which drives away parasites. A society that offers welfare and jail instead of exile says to the parasite that they will be able to survive just fine, because the society is afraid to kill or eject them. Once attached, their fortunes may change, but they are always there. Capitalism however has a great challenger in Nietzsche, who like his predecessor Schopenhauer sees it as an intermediary technique elevated to the level of goal in itself. Why not cut out the middleman, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer ask, and simply select our best to rule us, and obliterate the economy by replacing it with non-usurious ownership, in which case speculation goes away and land ownership again becomes important and thus can be regulated by a monarch.

3. Recapitulation is Capitulation

Rebellions, revolutions and new (although none are) ideas are like seeds falling from a tree: 99.99% of them will die before or soon after germination, and with human ideas the cause is recapitulation. An idea that thought it was distinct turns out to be close enough to another idea that it is assimilated. As a result, it becomes a footnote or is rejected for not offering anything different enough from what already is. To recapitulate what you are rebelling against is to fail. However, because ideas are not linear things but complex networks of concepts, most people recapitulate their enemies by attempting to linearize an idea, which forces its expression in terms of the strongest methods of the time. For this reason, most reactionaries choose a model of government that replicates either Adam Smith or the managerial state, and in doing so, give others no reason to follow their quest.

On claiming that certain things are not political or ideological

Tuesday, April 21st, 2015


On the right, it is popular to disclaim “ideology” and “politics.” There is truth to this, since the right is consequentialist and thus not based in should-be thinking like the left, and neoreaction is not populist, so it does not fall under politics which is itself a creation of democracy.

However, there is also a fallacy here. Ideology can mean any doctrine or philosophy with an end result of changing the world. Politics means any thought or thought process which addresses political change. Trying to step out of these things that way, and claim to be a theory above it all as some in Tradition and Neoreaction do, despite being well-intentioned, leads to confusion because it is not wholly true.

Any belief, even if a reality-based one as all consequentialist ones are, becomes both ideology and politics because it competes with ideology and intends a change in politics. To play a categorical game of denying this seems clever at first, until one realizes that by doing so, the belief system has stated itself as personal preference alone, and thus, has no application beyond how you order your lawn and 401(k).

While the corporatist line of Neoreaction is tempting, in which people sign on to managed communities where a corporation returns value and is accountable for its services, in reality these places show the downside of capitalism unchecked by culture: crass commerce, mixed-race social chaos, and a need — as time goes on — for increasing internal security as in the style of leftist states.

New Right introduced new “thought methods” just as Neoreaction and Tradition did. All of these beliefs fall under rightism not because right-wingers claim them, but because their ideals fit into the basic rubric of the right: consequentialist, or results-based, with a transcendental aim for “the good, the beautiful and the true” or “the perennial things” (Huxley) or “Tradition” (Evola).

While these new intellectual methods give us better ways to discuss the need for a society based on the above, they do not escape us from their intent: to change politics and counter ideology. It is best that all be honest about this, as otherwise we fall into the traps that allow leftist entryism, namely making our philosophy solely a “personal preference” or series of choices made while shopping for goods and services, and allowing entryism by making the method more important than the aim.

Recommended Reading