Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘traditionalism’

Escaping Our Fascination With Nazism

Tuesday, December 5th, 2017

Hitler will always fascinate the West because his Reich was the last vestige of what most of us think of as the old order, where society had structure, there was a right and wrong, and a nation was defined by one ethnic group instead of being a nation-state of whoever showed up and paid taxes. His fall was the announcement that the West had given up.

At the same time, we should remember that in bad times, even good things are tainted with doubt, and so what Hitler thought was right was divergent from what was. His regime was not particularly traditional, not fully nationalist, and modern to the degree that it corrupted whatever message or principle he was hoping to establish.

Future historians may summarize the Nazis as dualistic; they both attempted to re-create an older social order, and chose to do so by using the modern method of finding a message that would motivate the masses toward a singular purpose. If Nazism had a thesis, it would be that we can use mass culture as a means of undoing mass culture, and not surprisingly, this paradoxical attempt failed.

The Left says Hitler was a Right-winger and in fact as far Right as we should dare imagine; the Right says that he was a Leftist. The Right is more correct: Hitler, while he incorporated some goals of the Right in his plan, chose to implement it through Leftist methods and a desire to create an egalitarian society, just one based on race and not citizenship.

In particular, he borrowed a great deal from the Communists:

Adolf Hitler, who admired Stalin for his ruthlessness and called him a “genius,” was also heavily influenced by Marx. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism,” Hitler said, “as I do not hesitate to admit.” Throughout his youth, Hitler “never shunned the company of Marxists” and believed that while the “petit bourgeois Social Democrat … will never make a National Socialist … the Communist always will.”

Hitler’s “differences with the communists”, argued Watson, “were less ideological than tactical”. Hitler embraced German nationalism so as not to “compete with Marxism on its own ground”, but explicitly acknowledged that “‘the whole of national socialism’ was based on Marx”. It is, therefore, unsurprising that Nazi Germany, with its concentration camps and omnipresent secret police, came so closely to resemble the Soviet Union.

How much did the Nazis learn from the Soviets?

In his 1947 memoir Commandant of Auschwitz: The Autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, Hoess recalled that the Germans knew of the Soviet program of extermination of the enemies of the state through forced labour as early as 1939. “If, for example, in building a canal, the inmates of a [Soviet] camp were used up, thousands of fresh kulaks or other unreliable elements were called in who, in their turn, would be used up.” The Nazis would use the same tactic on the Jewish slave laborers in, for example, munition factories.

Following their invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, wrote Watson, the Germans collected information on the immense scale of the Soviet camp system and were impressed by the “Soviet readiness to destroy whole categories of people through forced labor”.

As some have noted, the tactics of the French Revolution were applied in Nazi Germany, just more efficiently than neurotic French Leftists could imagine. Where the French marched whole families to the guillotine, the Nazis attempted to deport them, then used them as slave labor, and finally when that failed, began to liquidate them.

National Socialism, as an idea, combined the need for nationalism — rising in Europe as nation-states became unstable and fragmented — with the dominant strain of European government at the time, which was increasingly socialist, and incorporated some aspects of the capitalist-driven fascist corporate State.

It did not swing to the far Right, which has always been those who hope to conserve l’ancien régime which is a society with caste, aristocracy, elite culture, hierarchy, customs, and a code of honor motivated by virtue. No modern government can emulate that because the basic idea of modernity, mass motivation, requires an equal herd clamoring for some trend or another.

The Nazis chose to make their message one that would motivate a group and, in doing so, reduced its meaning to what fit the expectations of the crowd, instead of what was needed. Having done that, the Nazis could no longer control public expectation, and got carried away with their rhetoric, making them both arrogant and cruel.

People imagine that Hitler was a successful totalitarian, but in fact, he was ruled by his people as much as he ruled them. They rebuked him on his attempt to ban smoking, and enjoyed a more comfortable standard of living even during the war than people did in the rest of the West. The Crowd shared in the dictatorship.

Not surprisingly, the Nazis showed signs of crowd infiltration even in their political statements, as we can see with these excerpts from The 25 Points of The Programme of the NSDAP:

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

If we look at these through the wide-angle lens of history, they do not appear that much distinct from either those of the French Revolution or the Soviet Union: in the name of equality, a State is being formed to re-distribute wealth, and it requires total power to do so. The total power is not being taken from We The People, but from its natural hierarchy (aristocracy).

The West remains obsessed by Hitler mostly because the Left has used him as a convenient symbol for all things that they fear, which means all of the things that would un-do our current time, which not coincidentally are things that many of us crave because we detest the current time. But following their lead is to assign them power over us.

Perhaps the Left fixates on Hitler in order to distract us from the actual far-Right ideas out there like Traditionalism and Futurism, because if we get our hands on those, there is no way we will ever be satisfied with the managerial nanny state ever again. From a perspective that far to the Right, Hitler would appear as a slightly less Leftist version of our present time.

Nonetheless, Hitler still seduces us, mainly because he stands for the return of leadership that actually cares about civilization instead of using civilization as its own meal ticket. Democracy stands for nothing except hollow promises about free speech, free association, and use of your own property that turn out to be lies, as it goes in search of (endless) new forms of funding.

First it was taxes, then it was immigrants, and in the future, they will probably charge you directly to be part of their society, and then tax you. Sales taxes, property taxes, state taxes, licensing fees, income taxes, tariffs which the consumer ultimately pays for, mandatory inspections, and payroll deductions: they kill you with the death of a thousand cuts and it is not about money. It is about power.

Right now, we summarize WW2 by saying that Hitler was evil and the Allies were mostly good. In the near future, we will recognize that the Allies were not mostly good, mainly because they fought a war of attrition against Europe in the name of what became fully Communist Leftism. In the distant future, people will see the Allies as the bad guys, and Hitler as an unfortunate but predictable response. Years after that, they will see the Holocaust as predictable and avoidable too.

At some point, we will dig out Theodor Herzl and realize that he was one of the first — after Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and others — anti-diversity philosophers. His point was not that the French were bad, but that the Dreyfuss Affair was predictable, because when you stand out from the rest, you will get scapegoated in times of crisis.

This originates in practical reasoning. If the group is basically in agreement, and they are all doing the same roughly right thing, then if something goes wrong either “right was wrong” or there was a sabotage, and suspicion is naturally cast on those who are not doing the right thing like everyone else because they are different. It does not matter how they are different, or who they are, but just the fact of being different alone qualifies them to be a threat or scapegoat.

Jews have been booted out of 109 nations not because Jews are bad, but because being Other is bad. Diversity never works. Jewish groups also have a history of going into nations and taking things out of context, like “work hard, get ahead.” Among a native population, this is understood as part of a social process; to an outsider, it is a singular task that eclipses all others, and is more easily undertaken, because they have no need to participate in that culture and its intricate sorting rules that choose people above others.

Jews, like Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese in the current USA, throw everything normal out the window and go for the throat of education and business. This alone makes them a target, but perceived or actual nepotism — probably a mix of both — and a tendency to lean toward politics and behaviors that emphasize their Otherness also make them a perpetually resented force. This is why the Holocaust was predictable, and in more honest times in the future, we will say that, without approving of the Holocaust at all, because mass murder of families is a Leftist thing and Leftism is a form of brain disorder.

When the future looks back on the twentieth century, it will see that we created all of our own problems through theories that focused on what the audience wanted — equality, diversity, feminism, socialism — instead of what our best people knew must be done to make civilization as an organic whole thrive. As time goes on, Hitler loses his sting, but we still see him as the only force that stood up to the perpetual encroachment of herd behavior, which always focuses on what the audience wants.

The most terrifying taboo out there now is not Nazism; it is the idea that people want to restore Western Civilization, which in turn would make the Left obsolete and forgotten. It would also bypass the intermediate stage that Hitler tried to turn into a future, and avoid the fate he encountered by his own hand.

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.

Roles For Traditional Women

Thursday, July 6th, 2017

We are archaeologists, trying to uncover the past so we know how society was when it was functional, before the present era descended and obliterated everything good and replaced it with what people wish were good.

As a result, we suffer mass confusion trying to understand what we actually want and what it might look like. A rising form of confusion is the role of women.

On one side, some who claim to be traditionalists attack female video presenters like Tara McCarthy for choosing to make Right-wing propaganda instead of staying home and popping out babies. Some, such as “Wintery Knight,” believe women should be limited to such roles.

Others want to perpetuate the idea of equality, and insist that women and men can have the same roles, which are then decided by “meritocracy” which is “equal.” You see this mostly on the Alt Lite.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

Let us look at a recent confusion about the role of a traditionalist woman:

Rather than that being the end of that, my friend and a blue pill male volunteer jumped right on it — “That’s a red flag! He’s trying to control you! Who is he to say who can and can’t be here?” they howled.

…I followed up on the conversation with both and explained my other half wasn’t trying to be controlling, he was trying to help me avoid a common weakness of mine, which is to feel bad for people and to try to save them when really they need to save themselves, just the same as I do, or any adult does.

…His were not the words of an oppressive, abusive brute who is just trying to isolate me. They are the wise words and reasoning of someone who is trying to look out for me and my kids, someone who wants to help guide and protect us from needless suffering and mistakes.

Men and women have complementary roles, which means that they are unequal partners toward the same purpose, contributing as they can in domains of authority granted to both. Generally, the woman rules home and family; the man handles income and defense. At the same time, these roles overlap somewhat, in that the man is the leader of the household and defends against invisible enemies like illogical thoughts, emotional responses and common human failings.

To divide these up in enumerated lists would be too many, but the most abstract roles for men and women will have men covering direction, and women handling the finding of balance in whatever direction they find themselves embarked upon.

In this light, a traditionalist woman does not have categorical restrictions on her. She can for example wield a video blog against the insanity of the world, and even defend the home as needed. She can read, think, write, play music, and do many other things of a creative nature. Her mind is not restricted, but she is under the guidance of her father or husband against threats which could subvert her, the family or the nation.

At the same time, men require reining in periodically or they will turn just about anything into a war. Women have a mediating role, which is not the same as constantly moderating male response, only knowing when to throw a towel over your raging beast of a male and haul it back inside because it is tired, manic or upset.

We help each other, men and women, which means covering each other’s blind spots and weaknesses. In tradition, the importance of role is that it is cooperative toward a purpose, which is to honor the order of nature with our willing adaptation to its structure, and this cannot be sketched out in the kind of stuffy rules that many who should know better want us to adopt.

Nationalists Defeat Antifa In Harrison, Arkansas

Sunday, May 28th, 2017

A few months ago, Leftists in Arkansas began forming groups for the purpose of stifling the rising nationalist, traditionalist and anti-communist sentiment in the area. These groups, including the Communist Mountain Home John Brown Gun Club Redneck Revolt and local antifa, planned a demonstration for May 27th in Harrison, Arkansas.

Upon hearing of this, nationalists set aside their differences and united on a general platform of nationalism with traditionalism, and showed up in numbers to counter-demonstrate and show the Leftist forces that they were not welcome to bully those who were not Leftist in the region. Several dozen Nationalists came together for this purpose, including R.G. Miller, the Arkansas state leader of the League of the South, the ShieldWall Network, The Knights Party and White Lives Matter.

These four different organizations and nationalist supporters fielded sixty-one men, women and children who stood together for the united purpose of resisting Leftist incursion into their communities at what was dubbed the “Anti-Antifa Rally.” In addition, the local community showed signs of support and police did not, as we have seen in many protests, show a preference for sheltering Leftists.

Obviously the protest worked, because the Leftists did not appear. Nationalists showed a public presence, flew the flag and held a prayer circle all while the promised Leftist presence did not manifest. Afterwards, over a hundred people enjoyed a private barbecue and worship service held offsite.

This type of activity shows what defeats the Left: local organization which sets aside differences to focus on the simple ideas of ethno-nationalism and tradition, and a strong public presence that warns the Left that they are not wanted in these communities, forcing them to retreat to the East Coast, California or other decadent Leftist preserves.

Association For The Protection Of The Lebanese Heritage Releases Of Men And Ruins Issue Three

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2017

A longstanding traditionalist organization that analyzes social health through art, literature and architecture, the Association For The Protection Of The Lebanese Heritage has released issue three of its digital magazine, Of Men And Ruins. This issue compiles writings from 2014-2016 in a lengthy tome that has been issued free online.

You can find the free download at the APLH site. It includes an article of mine, “Nationalism And Nihilism.”

Why Political Quizzes Miss The Point Entirely

Monday, May 1st, 2017

For those who enjoy a political quiz, a program that asks you questions to place you on several axes measuring political alignment, the new 8values quiz attempts to give its users some sense of where they fit relative to other political viewpoints.

The problem with these quizzes is that they do not separate methods and goals. As a result, for example, they presume that the only method of having strong power is through a State, and forget those who want aristocrats not a modern government. By not including non-modern viewpoints, this quiz in particular leaves no room for traditionalists or other monarchists.

If anything, this shows the struggle that the Alt Right faces. We know that Western Civilization has failed, and that modernity starting with egalitarianism has killed it, and that the solution is to implement a traditional-style civilization. This immediately puts us off the scope of political discourse entirely.

Our time shows among many other things the failure of politics itself. When power is divided, meaning that it shared between competing individuals or groups, politics is introduced, and egalitarianism only worsens the situation. At that point, the only way to get anything done is through manipulation and compromise, which destroys (inverts) the original purpose.

The test identified my political outlook as “fundamentalism.” While this sounds sort of cool, it misses the point. Those who realize that people are not only not necessarily good, but often bad, and in groups the herd defaults to these bad outlooks so that it can include everyone, tend toward a “religious” view of the world even if not religious per se.

Part of Traditionalism is the recognition that civilizations work well only when kept in balance. Balance means restraining our human impulses, having multiple approaches that vary with the situation as necessary, and preserving a strong hierarchy that orients civilization toward an ongoing and immutable goal. Anything else fails.

As we exit this age of decay, it is important that we embrace what is “good” and not merely what is “good enough.” We have to leave this disaster behind entirely, and that will not involve any of the viewpoints found on these political quizzes.

Interview With Mark Moncrieff of Upon Hope

Monday, February 27th, 2017

Several weeks ago, Upon Hope blog appeared on our radar here. It seems a mixture of traditional conservatism and Christian reactionary philosophy with an eye toward the practical, real-world and applied solutions versions of those ideas. I was fortunate to catch a few words with the proprietor, Mark Moncrieff, who has been writing at this blog for several years and tackling the “big topics” of being a conservative in the postmodern, post-collapse era…

You describe yourself and your writing as “Traditional Conservative.” What does this mean?

Let me split this question up into Conservative and then Traditional Conservative.

A Conservative believes in:

  • Tradition
  • Order
  • Family

Tradition does not mean we believe in things that are old and stale because a Tradition is not something that we do in the past, even though it comes from the past, but something we do now and hope to continue in the future. Tradition is the thing that connects, that seeks to reconcile, the past, the present and the future. We do not live at the start of history nor at the end, instead we live somewhere in the middle. The people of the past are not dead and gone and unimportant, anymore than the people of the present are unimportant, but neither are the people of the future, those generations still unborn unimportant. Tradition says remember the trinity of the past, the present and the future because if you lose sight of one then you have lost your way.

The theme of my blog is to try to explain Liberalism and Conservatism.

Order means that we do not believe in chaos, we believe that everything has both a rightful and a wrongful place. For example there are not eighty genders, there isn’t even one gender; there are two sexes, exactly two, male and female. That it is normal and natural for each sex to have its own unique attributes and failings. And that that continues for race, ethnicity and for individuals. We do not believe in equality because that is chaos not order, because there is nothing normal or natural in everything being the same

Family, Liberalism believes that the individual is the basic building block of society. But Conservatives know that is wrong [with that]: individuals have Mothers and Fathers; in short they have a Family. It is the Family that is the basic building block of society. We support blood, not water.

Conservatives come in two varieties, Paleos and Traditionalists, I am a Traditionalists. When it comes to social and economic issues we normally have very little to disagree about. It is foreign policy that divides us. Paleos believe that if we leave the world alone then the world will leave us alone. Traditionalists believe that we are part of the world and we cannot leave it alone anymore than it can leave us alone.  

How did you come to this viewpoint, and what other ideologies or folkways — conservatism more resembles this than an ideology — failed to meet your standards?

I first became aware of politics in my teens and even then I called myself a Conservative. But nearly everyone who calls themselves a Conservative is in reality a Liberal and when I look back I realise that I was a Classical Liberal. I believed in equality, in civic nationalism and I was prepared to give free trade a go. Of course I reject all of those things now but it has been a slow but steady transformation, so slow that most of the time you couldn’t even notice. But there were some things I never accepted about Liberalism, Feminism never made any sense to me, why would a women be happier as an accountant than as a Mother? 

I have never been a Leftist. I never even flirted with Communism or Socialism, nor with Nazism or Fascism, although I was interested in the latter two. Simply because even then Conservatives were called Nazis and Fascists, but it was very clear to me that I was neither of those things. When I heard of Anarchism I thought it was the stupidest political philosophy, but that place has been taken by Libertarianism which is basically right wing Anarchy. 

They say that the best trick the devil did was to convince the world he didn’t exist. Liberalism has pulled the same trick, pretending that instead of being the most radical political philosophy that has ever existed it is [in] the sane middle ground. For far too long I believed them.   

You have been blogging at Upon Hope for four years now, with an impressive ability to address questions that normal people might have about conservatism and the “why” of it. What would you say the theme of the blog is, and what kind of feedback do you get from your audience?

My intention has always been to use my blog as a way of doing things in real life. I never intended to go so deep into political philosophy, but I realised quite early on that while Liberalism needed to be picked apart and criticized it was also important to look deeper into Conservatism. I got a lot of support from other sites when I started and in my first two months I had over 500 visitors a month, but when I decided that I wanted to look more at Conservatism I lost around 2/3 of my visitors. It took a long time to get those numbers back up, I might add. I guess the theme of my blog is to try to explain Liberalism and Conservatism. The evils of Liberalism that is and the advantages of conservatism.

In the past few months I have had a bit of feedback but for a long time I hardly ever got any. Normally it is supportive and the very few angry emails are normally still intelligent. I have only ever deleted one email which was simply name calling. Although I have had some emails from married women telling me that I had influenced them not to reenter the workforce, which I was surprised but pleased to receive. 

Why is Leftism so popular?

Leftism is so easy to understand and it has a logic of its own. Everyone is equal; that’s easy to understand, even though it’s completely nonsensical. The same goes for nearly any topic the Left pushes: they reduce it to a slogan and present that as policy. To the average person it can sound like all they are asking is for everyone to be nice to each other. It is only when you dig down that you find out the meat is riddled with maggots. Because Leftism is full of lies, instead of chanting “”Illegal immigrants are welcome,” they instead chant “Refugees are Welcome”. Here we have a clear lie with a clear slogan, but what it is not is complicated.  

Can you tell us about yourself through a brief biography, and explain how you came to blogging.

I am a White working class Australian, 46, unmarried with no children and currently unemployed. So when I write about Liberalism, Feminism and Mass Immigration they are not academic subjects. I also served seven years in the Australian Army Reserves and I have a worthless University degree. My last job which finished last year was in the Operations room of a security company before they decided that my job could be done for a fraction of the price in the Philippines. 

In early December 2010 I was about to finish a casual job and I was pretty angry with how things were going. I thought to myself I cannot be the only one in Australia who feels like this and I went online to see if I could find an Australian Conservative site and I found Oz Conservative. Here was a guy who really was Conservative and I sent him an email and it turned out we lived only a few suburbs away from each other so we met up. Over time I wanted to do more than just think and in March 2013 I started by blog. I got a lot of support from Mr. Richardson at Oz Conservative, he really encouraged me and has been a great supporter of mine which I very much appreciate. Blogging can be hard, thinking can be hard, writing can be hard and then feeling that you’re running on the spot can be hard, so it was good to have someone in real life who was more experienced to talk to. 

Do you think there is a “dividing line” that separates people who are actually conservative from those attempting to use conservatism as a means-to-an-end, such as self-promotion?

Yes I do, as I said earlier Conservatives believe in Tradition, Order and Family. But most people who call themselves Conservatives are in fact Liberals. Liberalism has some advantages, it is extremely patient and logical, just to give an example it has been pushing equality since the 1830s and if you accept equality then why can’t two men marry each other? From the outside that might not seen logical but from the inside it absolutely is. But when Liberalism wins it also fouls its own nest. Because Liberalism is not about building a new world where two men can live in happily married bliss, it’s about destroying the old world were marriage exists. It is about breaking society down until there is only Autonomous Individuals and the Government and nothing else. But such a world will be unable to sustain itself.

So how can you tell the difference between an actual Conservative and a Liberal masquerading as a Conservative? 

An actual Conservative will never say that an immigrant is better, or that we need more immigration, or immigration built this country. He will never support the idea that we are only an economy, he will not support equality and he will be conservative when it comes to society. 

You argue for Constitutional Monarchy. What are the strengths of this system over democracy and absolute monarchy, and what is its Achilles heel or backdoor, a.k.a. how it can be subverted?

Constitutional Monarchy has already been subverted, that’s what Liberalism does; it subverts organisations and uses them to further their aims. I support a Constitutional Monarchy because it exists, Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy and I want it to continue to be. It helps maintain our relationship to Britain, the country that gave life to mine; it reminds us that we are part of a bigger and older world then the one our politicians and media want us to remember. It is a connection to our language, law, political system and social order. It is a reminder that we are not alone in this world but that there are other countries that are our kith and kin. The elites want Australia to be a republic and while the Constitutional Monarchy continues it stops them from getting it’s prestige and it is a reminder that we were once part of an Empire instead of the being the proto-republic they want us to be.

In the past the Constitutional Monarchy had power as well as prestige, today it only has prestige. but how the politicians want that prestige. The problem is Liberalism, it is an acid and it destroys everything it touches. Until it is destroyed nothing will work, not Democracy, not Absolute Monarchy, not Constitutional Monarchy. 

In an absolute monarchy, can a king be replaced, and is it necessary to have a formal process for this?

If a formal process exists to remove a reigning Monarch then it isn’t an Absolute Monarchy.

Traditionally if a Monarch was unfit to rule a regent was appointed to rule in his place, but he was not replaced. To replace a Monarchy is to betray the very idea of Monarchy.

Your approach is somewhat unique in that you defend traditional practices both from a health/existential viewpoint and an economic one, for example in the article where you argue that having housewives instead of female cube slaves is good for society and the economy. Do you think many conservative ways are beneficial in parallel like this, and why do you think that is so, if so?

I do think that Conservatism is not just a bunch of social concerns, of course social issues are important but we also have economic issues we must address. Not free trade and other Liberal ideas, which are often called Conservative. But a genuinely Conservative approach to economics. Free market economics that support as much as is practical small business over big business. Big business is the
natural friend of Liberalism, I think small business can be ours. 

So how can you tell the difference between an actual Conservative and a Liberal masquerading as a Conservative? 

Conservative thinking is often single issue thinking, Liberalism is much better than us here, it is always mutually supporting. We need to do that as well and I don’t think it’s that hard. The problem is that we do not dig deep into issues and cover as many bases as possible. To use housewives as an example, I thought about the larger economic effect, the effects on a families economics, the wider effects upon society, the effects it has on future generations as well as the personal effects. So often we only approach a topic from one direction, but when we come at an issue from more than one angle we find that it is often naturally mutually supporting.  

Conservatism seems to be on a bit of a rebound. What caused the “crash” in Leftism worldwide? How can conservatism rise? What pitfalls does it need to avoid? And how does this relate to the split between traditionalist and modernist varieties of conservative?

What caused the “crash” in Leftism worldwide?

Liberalism went full retard and as we all know, you never go full retard. In the past you could come home from work and sit down in front of the TV and watch Matlock solve a crime and the ads would try to sell you a refrigerator. Today you come home from work where you had to listen to a lecture on diversity, Matlock is a woman who investigates the murder of a transgender by a White man and the refrigerator is sold to you by an immigrant and the ideal family is apparently two people of different races with their multiracial children. In the past you could escape Liberalism, but today there is no where you can escape.  

How can conservatism rise?

So much is failing and so man y people can see it is failing. The old slogans are no longer working. We need to show people the heel and to remind them that it doesn’t need to be invented. Things once did work and while we cannot go back to the past we can use it to build the future. But to do that we need more than blogs, we need real world Conservative groups.

What pitfalls does it need to avoid? And how does this relate to the split between traditionalist and modernist varieties of conservative?

The most obvious is to not think that Classical Liberalism or Right Liberalism is Conservative. They call themselves Conservatives but they are not, we must be on the lookout for them as they will try to infiltrate us and take over our organisations. And if we don’t have organisations then we are not going to get anywhere. It will be the gatekeepers who will decide if we can continue because if they are good at keeping out the Liberals we will do find but if they are not then we will fail.

Thank you, Mark, for being with us today. Interested readers can visit him at Upon Hope blog for interesting CRX and trad perspectives.

Insight Into A Traditionalist Deep Ecology Based Society

Friday, February 24th, 2017

Smithsonian Magazine writes about how one can play the civilization game, do everything mostly right, and still be eliminated by the shifting sands of time:

Yet it appears the Norse were careful: They limited their hunting of the local harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, a species that raises its young on beaches, making it easy prey. (The harbor seal is critically endangered in Greenland today due to overhunting.) “They could have wiped them out, and they didn’t,” Smiarowski says. Instead, they pursued the more abundant—and more difficult to catch—harp seal, Phoca groenlandica, which migrates up the west coast of Greenland every spring on the way from Canada. Those hunts, he says, must have been well-organized communal affairs, with the meat distributed to the entire settlement—seal bones have been found at homestead sites even far inland.

…“People came from different farms; some provided labor, some provided boats,” Smiarowski says, speculating. “Maybe there were several centers organizing things along the coast of the Eastern Settlement. Then the catch was divided among the farms, I would assume according to how much each farm contributed to the hunt.” The annual spring seal hunt might have resembled communal whale hunts practiced to this day by the Faroe Islanders, who are the descendants of Vikings.

The growing season was short, and the land vulnerable to overgrazing. Ian Simpson has spent many seasons in Greenland studying soil layers where the Vikings farmed. The strata, he says, clearly show the impact of their arrival: The earliest layers are thinner, with less organic material, but within a generation or two the layers stabilized and the organic matter built up as the Norse farmwomen manured and improved their fields while the men were out hunting. “You can interpret that as being a sign of adaptation, of them getting used to the landscape and being able to read it a little better,” Simpson says.

This shows a society that lived according to both deep ecology and traditionalist principles. It found balance with nature in its food source, yet also changed the land with the use of manure to fertilize it. It engaged in group activities that distributed rewards according to contribution and not equally. And other evidence mentioned in the article reveals a highly orderly, caste-organized, and religious civilization. These are goals to strive for.

Of course, history brings twists of its own, and one is that settlement on Greenland was doomed because of a volcano eruption and loss of important resources for trading, and so the settlement gradually packed up and moved out, family by family. These periodic historical crises happen, such as the Black Plague in Europe or even the Mongol invasions, and they can destroy civilizations that otherwise did everything right. Nature is random but hopes to, on a statistical level, ensure prevalence of the most well-adapted.

“It’s a very different story from my dissertation,” says McGovern. “It’s scarier. You can do a lot of things right—you can be highly adaptive; you can be very flexible; you can be resilient—and you go extinct anyway.”

Nonetheless, this shows us some basic principles that our future Western Civilization can use: it can exist in balance with nature. It can suppress the weak behavior of humans with strong social order and a devotion to transcendental and qualitative ideas like religion. It can have traditional values without becoming too human to exist in its surroundings. But there are no guarantees and no Utopias; all we can do, by doing the above, is to maximize our chances.

Interview With Wrath Of Gnon

Thursday, February 23rd, 2017

Many of our readers are familiar with Wrath of Gnon, the cerebral meme-master who pairs classic art with insightful quotations from writers and thinkers. Although he exists only on social media, his elegant images spread across the web and, interestingly for social media, re-appear years later. We were lucky to get some time to chat with the elusive Wrath of Gnon.

When did you first know that you would pursue a different path than that of the majority? Is there any way for someone who aspires to sanity to feel good about this modern world?

I was not exceptional in that I was born reactionary. I believe most people are for the simple reason that all the hollow slogans of the progressives — Equality, Brotherhood, Liberty, etc. — are so obviously untrue to even the most socially isolated child (and I was not in the least isolate, I grew up in a large loving family).

To maintain the progressive mindset it is vital that people remain detached from reality (from their roots, families, friends, communities), and plugged in or attached to the propaganda machine. Take a man away from media for a fortnight and you will see emerge a more sensible, realistic human being. My own reactionary thinking has only strengthened the more I remove myself from modern media and groupthink.

It is not difficult: stop looking at mass media, distance yourself from all writing that “feels” modern; keep going backwards in times until you find what you are comfortable with. There are even some recent writers with an old fashioned mind set, you don’t have to read Chaucer, as certain works of Kerouac will do just as well. Immerse yourself in reality: aspire to experience and perform all the functions of life, as far as it is humanly possibly for you.

This can include growing your own crops to taking your friends for extended hiking trips in the wilderness. There are no excuses and I believe it is possible for everyone to cultivate a timeless mindset. The important thing is to, in some way, manner or form, reach backwards. This is the meaning of the slogan “Revolt Against the Modern World”: to turn your back on modernity.

What, in your view, went wrong with the West, and how do we fix it? How deeply does the rot go?

As for when (even though you did not ask), there is the famous quip — “For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution.” (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn) — but the Traditionalist-Catholic wing of reactionary thinkers go further, blaming the reformation. And so on. This is a fun but ultimately pointless game.

Personally I would not even call it a rot, as I subscribe to the Evolian idea that we are already “men standing in the ruins.” Rome has fallen all around us, it is just that we have not noticed yet (or as Adam Smith mirrored it “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation”). This question brings to mind the two famous portrayals of two different Roman nobles in the fifth century A.D., one who leaves the Imperial Capital to return to his family lands in Gaul, to “weather out the temporary unrest”, while the other quietly slips away to eventually found his own Holy Order, the Benedictines. The first thinking that order will soon be restored, the other with his mind already set on eternity. Both accounts make for fantastic reading.

The good thing is that everything we need to turn things around is already here. All the material, all the plans, all the accumulated wealth and knowledge of millennia of human thought and creativity is scattered all around us. We even have a time table for how to do it (and this was suggested by someone on Twitter three or four years ago), we just start turning the clock back, step by step, reversing history as we go along, keeping only the reality compliant, Gnon friendly parts.

And we might unwittingly have started this already: education, housing, vacation homes, etc., it is all becoming too expensive very fast. We are losing the means of production to more ruthless countries in the Far East, and we are running out of natural resources. Unrest in far away countries have started cramping our wanderlust—quick now, 2017 might be your last chance to see the Louvre, the Pyramids and the beaches of Pattaya! And speaking of Pattaya, sexually transmitted diseases are quickly becoming immune to treatment, thus limiting us even in our choices of partners, and in their numbers, automatically unwinding the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.

Mark Stein said “The future belongs to those who show up,” and as Evola noted, what we have to do now is to hold out, to “ride the tiger,” to “remain standing in the ruins,” to (as Rod Dreher posited) take the Benedict Option and become neo-monastics. And have children, of course. Lots and lots of children.

You publish a series of intellectual memes — striking images overlaid with notable quotations and cutting insights — which reveal much about what is wrong, and where we might go. What appealed to you about this format? How do you choose images and quotations?

I had been skimming the outer fringes of the “reacto-sphere,” but I think I was influenced in taking the step to participate more actively by a few people, and a few memes. The first was an anonymous image showing a leafy green, beautifully airy urban street from the turn of the last century, overlaid with the words: “NEVER AGAIN.” That one hit me like a brick in the forehead.

At the same time, I happened to find @shaunwesleywyrd and E.H. Looney on Twitter. S. Wes shared a photo of an old book by Oswald Mosley he was reading, photographed with whiskey and a pipe, and Looney shared (and I still think this is a most fantastic meme) an image of a young woman in medieval garb with the text: “The First Reich was the Best Reich.”

I saw a way to present (to the general public) very “politically incorrect,” almost caustic ideas, in a fun setting. It took me a few weeks of experimenting to realize that I needed two more vital ingredients: a pinch of gravitas (which I got from relying mostly on very old literature) and beauty. Beauty is the beginning of all things good, and goodness is the beginning of all beautiful things. At the very same time I was reading NRx, I read Bryce, MM, Sailer, Jim, Nick Land etc., and the rest is (well documented) history.

I have a decent image memory, so I remember a lot of images I have seen, and when I find a good quote in my readings (I read a lot, and almost only autobiographies these days) or online or suggested by helpful people on Twitter or Tumblr, that fit an image, I add it. And of course, the other way around. I think my best work is actually when I see an image and the text just comes to me naturally, whether it is my own or a quote from someone else (I do realize that there are almost no original thoughts out there, so as far as possible I try to give credit where credit is due).

Unlike many within modernist movements, including the Alt Right, you are an out-of-the-closet monarchist. What led you to have faith in monarchy? How do we get there from here?

Humankind has at the very least thirty-five centuries of monarchy under its belt by now (at least Europeans, much longer if you include the other great historical cultures), and this has taken us from roving bands of hunters to the outer reaches of the solar system. Furthermore the amount of beauty in the world is diminishing at the same rate that Modernity is growing.

I noticed that globalism is erasing differences both geographically as well as culturally while increasing meaningless ugliness! It is the differences that are important, the distinctions that make everything on this planet so interesting! I even have a love for borders (and walls and fences, demarcations, ditches, hedgerows, etc.): strange and wonderful things happen in borders regions: the starkest contrast, the strangest amalgmations and syntheses, the most interesting crossovers. Borders are great things — we need more of them!

I hate the leveling leviathan of globalization and commercialism. I do not trust systems — is there any system that has not achieved a long history of atrocities by now? All systems are inherently unsustainable, as they are founded in ideas rather than in observable reality, and once the people holding these ideas change, so do the ideas (witness social democrats in Europe or social justice warriors in American campuses).

By contrast, I find Monarchy the most robust, sustainable (and ecological if you will) form of societal organization. It mirrors only those structures that already exist in reality and in nature, it is so simple that even a child can understand it, even participate in it. When ever a group of pre-schoolers gather to play without adult interference, a natural hierarchy will establish itself within seconds. Between the two genders, between the members of the group, between the group (the culture) and reality (nature). The Monarch is to the nation what the Father is to the family.

Humans are the only animals that will actively invent problems in order to provide solutions for them. But monarchy is one of those things that just will not be improved upon, it is one of the eternal truths about mankind and of the reality of things. If mankind ever stops needing a King, well then I posit to say that we have already evolved (or devolved, more likely) into something post-human. But as long as the idea of the King survives, it will live on, ready to spring back into reality.

As Georges Bernanos asked of a four-year-old Lorrainer boy: “What is a king?”, “A king is man on horseback who is not afraid!” As fine a definition as ever I heard, and far more correct than a whole indoctrination camp of university professors.

How have you found ways to adapt to modern life? What is it like, living in a world where basically everyone is not just wrong but insane, and every institution is subtly corrupted?

Humor helps. And the knowledge that all institutions are merely guided by corrupt men and women, and that we are all more or less brainwashed from birth by Modernity. As a culture, we have always had ways to deal with people whose grip on reality is less than robust, only these days they seems to end up Chancellors, Chairmen of the Committee or with Tenure. As we were all once brainwashed, so we can all find our ways out of the modern labyrinth.

Here is where the allegory of the Red Pill comes in handy. I have, by now, a pocket full of them, and the more I give out, the more I seem to carry around. It is a self-feeding fire: every conversion is the seed of a dozen more, and the anecdotes of these “red-pillings” are moralizing tinctures indeed. On a more personal level, I am helped by reading, and finding that I am not alone. Everything I think and feel has been felt or thought before. As Evola put it:

My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.

I have tons of allies. Mind you, most of them (as of now at least) dead, but still. Tons.

If people want to break out of the mental virus of modernity, how should they do so? Is there a universal path, and do all people need to come to in-depth realizations, or can they rely on gut instinct?

Most of us are in it too deep. Every time we reach towards the light of the surface, modernism is there again, Chthulu dragging us downstream and into the murky darkness. Sometimes we can be helped by friends, someone reliable to help us climb back up. Find sanity again. Sometimes it happens in flashes of revelations (everyone knows these and Twitter is a great place to share), but like any idea whose time has come, we are slowly building towards a critical mass. Our ideas are sustainable, confirms to reality: when nature, long in tooth and red in claw sneers at us form the dark thicket, we are ready to sneer back, and soon there will be more of us. We will reach, sooner or later, the necessary critical mass.

There are of course savants out there, people who are so remarkably grounded that they are immune to modernity: you probably know many. Your uncle the air force mechanic. That aunt who is a nurse and never opened a book in her life but has started and ended more lives than Sitting Bull. That cousin who can build an engine from spare parts but has never heard of Affirmative Action in his life. Surround yourself with them. Go to them. Bask in their clearheaded glory. And then come back to the fray to pick up a few more lost souls.  As Tolkien stated so well: “It is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life.”

We hear a lot about environmental problems these days. In your mind, what is the relationship between modernity and ecocide, and is it purely industrial, or related to underlying political or social problems?

The simplest way I can put it, is that the environment has stopped being something wonderful from which to draw resources and strength to start being a problem that we have to “deal with”. Just listen to yourself, the phrase, “environmental problems”! It is amazing when you think about it. How did we get here? It is a combination of many things (let me name a few):

  • Individualism: I have needs, so screw the rest.
  • The Tragedy of the commons: No one owns anything any more. Everything is up for grabs. This ties in to nationalism, which is a natural defense mechanism and reaction to weak states. Environmental concern is the left wing shadow of this reaction.
  • Receding horizons: We are so used to there not being any more fish in the ocean that we forgot what it was like just two generations ago. We are so used to worrying about our kids walking two blocks to school by themselves we think it is normal, even though we ourselves would happily bicycle ten miles or more to go skinny dipping in ponds and lakes when we were twelve.
  • Rootlessness: Why should I bother about this place that I have never seen before and that I will never see again? I have no idea what it was like ten years ago, never mind a generation or more!
  • Unqualified Optimism (in Eternal Progress): Things will only get better. Progress leads to better things and evolution always climbs higher. Well, I have news for you buddy: nature does not care if it produces Beethoven’s Ninth or a superbly infectious tape worm. Whatever remains standing at the end of the day is what will remain. Nature is a blind God and you can never ever outrun or outsmart it. Moloch is not going to protect you either, despite how many babies you roast at its fires.

These all combine to create the situation we have today: Holidays in Cambodia and 120 channels on your TV, meanwhile the Springs keep growing more and more Silent for every year. But it is my firm opinion, that the environment (its uses and abuses, including the whole “environmental problem” subject) is fundamentally and unquestionably a right wing issue.

The left is the side of the favelas and locusts, the factories and the mercury spills, the estrogen in our drinking waters and the loneliness of the last rhino on the savannah. The right is about stewardship, firm action, boundaries, and responsibility. Green is a reactionary color. Just as in this neighborhood we shoot dealers, in this forest we also shoot poachers.

What activities do you find fulfilling outside of politics and philosophy? How do these help you and others live normal lives in the midst of the maelstrom of insanity?

Oh, I hate politics. With a passion. I will only talk politics with actual politicians and even then it is just a ruse to get them so close that I can kick them. Politics divides friends and splits families. Politics starts out with a discussion on the fair way to handle lay offs in industry and ends in one side digging mass graves for the other side. If politics does not get you mad and fuming you are doing it wrong.

I yell at people starting a conversation with the words “So what about that election uh?” Politics is of the enemy. I mine it sometimes, for ammunition, or for making more Red Pills. But that is it. Nothing more. As for philosophy I hardly ever read it. I have always been an “Oh yeah? Show me!” kind of guy. I want to see why monarchy works. I want to taste why democracy doesn’t (Anyone care for Soup? Our chef is legion).

Roger Scruton’s is the only philosophy I ever read, and even then I only read his most down to earth passages and grounded texts. I had enough abstract philosophy at university (and boy was that ever the biggest mistake of my life!), overdosing on Kant and Derrida at twenty.

But as for normal activities, I take an interest in drafting classical architecture, rural crafts, etc. It all helps me refocus, or retune myself to reality.

Right now, what is one thing that a normal person can do to resist modernity and encourage a shift toward a saner, healthier form of civilization?

I touched on this subject in an earlier answer, but if I would have to say one thing, it is to Stop consuming: media, stuff. Once that is done, start by gathering your friends and allies: “Form a Gang.”

I am no fan of rock stars, but they had the right idea when they started defenestrating TV sets. Everyone should try it sometime. The fresh air will do us good! As moms everywhere and in all times have pointed out: “It is a nice day outside, go out and play.”

How can people stay on top of your writings and creations, and what can they do to support your work?

I post most creations on Tumblr, and a lot of my readings and opinions on Twitter. I am not in this for money, I borrow quite freely from the dead and the living, I require no fame. I take up little space and need little nourishment. Kind words help though. If you find the mass of my messages too much, feel free to edit out my name from the images (lots of people do). Use whatever you need.

If you feel like helping, I would love to receive more suggestions from non-English speaking reaction, as long I can double check the sources independently, I am usually happy. If something strikes my fancy I will use it. I sometimes suggest titles that are in need of translating into English. Feel free to get started. Donoso Cortes, Barras, Bernanos, etc. there is so much out there that deserves a bigger audience. Quality is important, but so is quantity. The sheer weight, the volume of thought we can point to—it all adds up.

Sydney Traditionalist Forum Unleashes 2017 Symposium

Friday, February 10th, 2017

Long a synthesis of traditionalist and ancient Right thought in the Southern Hemisphere, the Sydney Traditionalist Forum has launched its 2017 Symposium, a collection of writings designed to inaugurate the New Year through publication online and later, in print.

You may notice some familiar voices. The introduction notes that “Brett Stevens offers a robust critique of the ideology of formal and doctrinaire egalitarianism, and how it can be countered with a return to hierarchy and perennialist ideas.” You can read that text, entitled “Y3K,” here.

It looks like quite a bit of work went into this year’s Symposium from the Sydney Traditionalists, and resulted in high quality content across the board from some of the most interesting voices from the non-modernist side of humanity. This is the kind of work that propels us into the long march to recover the institutions which will be necessary for recapturing the West.

Recommended Reading