Posts Tagged ‘traditionalism’

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.

Theosis Is A Form Of Realism

Tuesday, January 31st, 2017

As part of the Platonist vision of conservatism, articles on this site frequently speak of the vision unleashed by the intersection of Platonic forms and Germanic Idealism, namely that recognition that the underlying substance of the universe is thought or thought-like. This is why idea, structure, pattern and logic that corresponds to the outside world are more important than immediate material obstacles.

This ancient philosophy lives on through hermeticism, but also in Christianity through transcendentalist thinkers like Johannes Eckhart. Hermeticism finds its roots in Hindu idealism which, as expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, roughly mirrored the Greek and German versions. All expressed the idea of an order of nature based not in material position, but logical order.

Plato even took this far enough to speak of healthy civilizations, which recognized this order, as contrasted to unhealthy ones, which were in the grip of hubris or the brew of individualism, narcissism, solipsism and socially-empowered boldness — in which the approval of the social group matters more than reality, and makes us feel safe in denying traditions — which modern people exhibit, especially with their smug and prim attention whoring at political events. Plato wrote:

In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us.

…When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

…Undoubtedly, he said, the form of government which you describe is a mixture of good and evil.

Why, there is a mixture, I said; but one thing, and one thing only, is predominantly seen, –the spirit of contention and ambition; and these are due to the prevalence of the passionate or spirited element.

The most important line can be found here, in plain sight because very few people can understand it: “the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things.”

To be virtuous is to live in a perpetual state of contentment, and to be free from “contention and ambition…the passionate or spirited element.” The ego is the root of the passions; the nature of being “spirited” is to be rebellious against what the evident order. Plato is pointing out that greed and rebellion are one and the same force.

Even more, he is showing how there is an esoteric path to wisdom, namely that only those with gold and silver natures are going to understand the value of “virtue and the ancient order of things.”

From this comes the root of traditionalist thinking: worldwide, there are many religions, and they all describe the same world, so they converge — unequally, idiosyncratically — on the same “truths” or accurate observations about the world, both physical and metaphysical. When we recognize this, we see that history is indeed cyclic, or the story of humanity in an optimal state, its fall, and its attempt to return.

In order to effect our return to this saner state of human being, and to force our evolution into silver and gold again, we must begin with an evolution of consciousness toward extreme accuracy:

When Owen Barfield described the evolution of consciousness, he used ‘evolution’ in a pre-Darwinian sense of a developmental change analogous to the fertilised egg ‘unfolding’ to become a mature, adult organism.

…If the evolution of consciousness has a unified purpose and aim (isn’t just a different purpose and aim for each entity), then this implies that there is a deity – as the source of purpose. Therefore, the evolution of consciousness is a consequence of some divine plan.

What could this divine plan be? For many Christians it will be ‘theosis’ – or the process of Men becoming more and more like God; aiming at becoming Sons and Daughters of God.

Realism demands that we understand our world as it is and adapt to it, which first requires that we make our minds more like the world, a process that in turn leads to transcendental wisdom, or appreciation for the logicality and sanity of our world in presenting us with the best possible existence. Normally humans do not understand their world and so view it as crude, threatening and disorganized.

Theosis is a subset of realism. If God exists, He is part of this world, in idea or at least as a cause of the effect that is this world. If we study the patterns of this world and come to understand its (realist + transcendental) wisdom, we can then grow closer to God by achieving greater mastery of adaptation to the physical world around us.

What this means, interestingly, is that the “religion-first” approach to traditionalism is not going to work. What works is to enforce self-discipline on ourselves so that we accurately understand and adapt to reality, and religion will emerge from within that process instead of the other way around.

Discovering Nihilism

Wednesday, December 7th, 2016


Reader-submitted photo.

Writing about nihilism presents a problem in that most people equate nihilism with fatalism, or the giving up on any chance to make life saner, better, more pleasurable, or even excellent. Fatalism is in fact the most common human response to life, and consists of both a grudging acceptance of the failures of life because it is more convenient than fighting them, and a resentment which allows the individual to consider themselves a victim, pity themselves, and then use that feeling as a justification for indulging their self-centered urges as compensation for their suffering.

Nihilism as espoused in Nihilism: A Philosophy Based in Nothingness and Eternity, on the other hand, is a radical skepticism toward the means of perception that are convenient for humans. The large Simian brain tends to fit perception into what is convenient for its own modes of thinking, which means that it projects its own order onto reality, and tends to create a tunnel vision by making a first impression and then filtering out data that does not conform with that thesis.

In addition, nihilism rejects false dualities like “subjectivity” and “objectivity” based in universalism, or the idea that all human minds work alike, which is a projection by the individual that makes them feel as if they control their world. There is no truth, communications or standard value system; rather, each of us acts according to what we are as genetic organisms, and that determines what we can understand and thus what truths we perceive, how we interpret language and thus how we translate communications from others into our own meaning, and a values system specific to the degree of excellence and realism we can analyze and interpret.

The doctrine of nihilism wages war against proxies, or intermediate human measurements which can be gamed and therefore create dark organization within human groups. Proxies create conditions for their own satisfaction which do not achieve satisfaction of their ostensible goal, creating perverse incentives for deception by adhering to the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit. Instead, nihilism argues for a morality of cause and effect, such that we measure our acts by their results and consequences and not our intent.

This “black pill” reverses every idea of The Enlightenment,™ which posited that human reason was universal and therefore, we could understand things in groups instead of relying upon the exceptional among us to comprehend them. Nihilism is a war-cry for the competent to rise in a hierarchy and oppress the rest, even if merely by dominance of opinion, because humans are not equal and accuracy of perception is more important than ideological conformity and the social good feelings it produces.

Over at Praefuscus Ferrum, occult writer D.A.R.G. has conducted a three-part examination of the book, culminating in an inspection of its esoteric and traditionalist aspects:

Brett Stevens advocates nihilism as a gateway to realism and idealism which, hand in hand and dealt with higher intellect, take the mentality of the individual towards transcendentalism. In a summarised manner, it is an extreme acknowledgement of what is without trying to impose human illusion over the tangible and measurable universe, only to then head towards the highest ideals that we can think of in an ever-ascending path. The beneficent effect of this outlook is twofold: first, it bypasses any impulse towards compromise and mediocrity, and second, it forces us to consider the permanent first of all, and the temporal in view of it.

Furthermore, to achieve such a vision, humans are required to put aside their egos, and so any illusions of socially-imposed egalitarianism in favour of a holistic vision of what is good as per ultimate consequences. Unfortunately, some divide this into two black-and-white categories in the common means versus ends dilemma, which is only so for those afflicted with narrow minds and short sightedness. Each question should be evaluated in its own context, not dealt with in prescribed absolutes such as “this is bad/good”, and rather as “what will the effect of this course of action be in this condition?”.

To follow up on these ideas, readers might also seek out the general introduction to nihilism offered by the publisher.

This follows an in-depth analysis of the underpinnings of Germanic Idealism present in the philosophy of nihilism

However, according to Brett Stevens, reality must be perceived or understood as having an underlying logic. But like the ancients and their esoteric holistic fusion of science, philosophy and religion, and unlike most post-Descartes and Aristotelian philosophy, it recognises that reality is ineffable.

This recognition may explain why so many different coherent explanations have cropped up in modern philosophy, without one or another possessing an objective superiority. This ineffability of reality leads to the esoteric method and the recognition of occult properties: those which we may never perceive directly; not even through scientific instruments, for physical science can only study effects. The apparent incoherence of esotericism, including the way Brett Stevens approaches nihilism, can only be resolved through direct experience in what is termed as a ‘coincidence of opposites’.”

The author also explains the roots of nihilism in heuristic realism:

By destroying all illusion of human-given value one comes to a direct and plain experiencing of reality. Thereby the plain, consistent workings of an immanent reality become apparent, or the emanations and manifestations thereof. This is the Godhead of the semi-esoteric Western Christian, which in the Tree of Life consists of the Supernal Triangle containing the higher Trinity (the “Father”, for all intents and purposes) that defines the abstract ‘mechanics’, relations and polarities of reality at every level.

Be that as it may, such conceptualisations may serve a further conscious study, but an attentive and self-directed mind will perceive and attain these notions unaided by theoretical systems, mystical or otherwise. The individual may thus be led, in his search for value, to consciously selected methods and systems by the way they address reality itself rather than by external imposition. This attainment of power is exciting and decisive in the future of the individual.

Any writer would be fortunate to attract the readers who have written in on this book — alert, introspective, analytical and rigorous — and it is its triumph that, regardless of ultimate popularity, it has found the group who are forging the future of humanity in hearts and minds. With any luck, it will be a popular Christmas gift this year, spreading perplexity and terror to humanity.

How The Left Misunderstands Conservatism

Thursday, November 10th, 2016

leftists_are_unhappy_people

The Left has never understood conservatism because the Left has never wanted to. To them, their ideology of egalitarianism leads directly to Utopia, at which point there will no longer be conflict between humans and everyone will be accepted. Any deviation from this is a moral sin punishable by death, in their view.

That explains why the Left does not want to understand conservatism: they have zero room for it in their pantheon of ideologically-tinted symbolic representations of reality. This is because while conservatism is voiced as an ideology, fundamentally it is anti-ideological because it bases its perceptions on reality.

Conservatism comes from the term “to conserve,” which means that we preserve successful means of achieving excellence. In human terms, nothing can be preserved in a static sense, but must be regenerated anew in each generation, so “conservation” means not physical things but principles, methods and ideas.

As written here before, that means that conservatism has two attributes:

  1. Consequentialism. We judge success by end results and side-effects, not by human intent, feelings, judgments, universal symbols and emotions. Reality is external to us; internal focus is solipsistic.

  2. Transcendence. There must be some goal higher than material reaction, like excellence, beauty, goodness and truth, and we discover it through intuition, which is within but not personal.

This contrasts with Leftism, which has only one attribute: egalitarianism, or the equality of people, which is presumed to lead to pacifism and universal acceptance, and from there to Utopia. Leftism works through negative actions, or things it wishes to remove; conservatism requires restructuring society around positive goals, or things we want to achieve.

For this reason, in our Leftist time, our Leftist media has trouble understanding why conservatism does not translate into Leftist terms. First they want to make it an ideology; then, they try to import egalitarianism — the core and principle of Leftism — into it, despite for conservatism, egalitarianism being at most a means to an end and not an end in itself.

As a recent article demonstrate, our society is now struggling to understand conservatism which is as distant as a foreign land to a society brainwashed in two centuries of Leftism:

Nash presented an influential portrait of conservatism as a river fed by three tributaries of thought: Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism). Although each could be rendered as a popular impulse or unthinking reflex of the mass mind, Nash insisted that all three were fundamentally intellectual traditions, nourished by a cast of characters who deserved both respect and extended study, among them James Burnham, the former socialist turned anti-Communist; Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian classical economist; and Russell Kirk, America’s answer to Edmund Burke. In Nash’s telling, these were the men (and they were almost all men) who created conservatism in the postwar years.

This article is patent nonsense. Conservatism is not a material ideology, but a timeless principle. It can be found in “Christian traditionalism, anti-Communism, and libertarianism (or classical liberalism)” but they are not its constituent components. Rather, as a principle, it is found many places, and those are the ones we recognize — “observer bias” — because of their recent relevance.

A conservative is someone who likes what works. Because the question then arises “How well does it have to work?” he has to pick either bare minimums (utilitarianism) or best case scenarios, and that latter leads him to the goal of excellence. That in turn picks out the principle of nature: all works to produce a hierarchy that advances the best over the rest, and this extends to metaphysical principle.

For all that modern people know of conservatism, the above passage might as well be in ancient Greek. However, as we enter into a conservative area with Brexit rippling across the USA and Europe, we might want to understand the path out of the Leftist mental ghetto and how we can use it to save ourselves from the moribund inertia of liberalism.

The Alt Right

Thursday, October 27th, 2016

men_among_the_ruins

The Alt Right rose, then tried to figure out what it was. It knew a general direction, which was that it said the stuff that the mainstream Right wanted to but could not and still keep its jobs, but beyond that, it was confused.

It arose from a mishmash of philosophies. The New Right, Traditionalism, White Nationalism, Paleoconservatives, Neoreaction, Nietzschean conservatives and Dark Enlightenment met in a blender. Some have suggested that the intersection among them is right, but more likely, it is their shared forward ideal: a resurrection of the greatness of Western Civilization, and to that end, the means and methods required to achieve it.

Many have contemplated it. Among the best:

And that is only a small sampling of all that has been written on this topic, although these pieces at least cover all topics and link to all major articles. And still, the definition remains fuzzy… let us look at some recent sources:

“Will The Real Alt-Right Please Stand Up?”:

It seems to me that, if anything, the Alt-Right is a blanket term applied to all non-mainstream conservatives of all stripes that serves more as a negation than a positive claim. In other words, if anything, the Alt-Right brings people together based on what they mutually dislike, not a shared set of ideas.

Mr. Heft makes an essential basic point here: the Alt Right is formed in opposition to modernity, and there are many degrees of this. On the farthest Right, people want a restoration of traditional civilization to provide a new golden age of Pericles, as Arthur Schopenhauer suggested. We know what we do not want: the soul-killing, environment-killing, culture-destroying, pointless and tedious modern age, despite its good shopping and wide variety of ethnic food.

And what distinguishes those views?

“The Rise Of The Radical Right: The Alt Right, Neoreaction And The Trump Campaign”:

Meanwhile, the movement itself is an amalgamation of all ‘alternative’ right wing views that are today considered heterodoxy. This means that the views of one person who considers himself to be part of the ‘Alt-Right’ can be, though do not necessarily have to be, radically different to another.

Summary: these views are socially unacceptable. Taboo, in other words, they are forbidden by informal social rules from being uttered. All of the people who are currently thriving in this wasteland think that these things should not be mentioned. So: speakers of hidden, or dare we say… occult… notions of reality.

A New Right thinker of note expands on this:

“A Talk With Daniel Friberg, Co-Founder Of Arktos and RightOn:

What I mean with the Real Right are those people, organisations and ideologies who do not accept the framework that the Left has set on the public debate.

…The success of the Alt Right illustrates the effectiveness of metapolitical methods. Via cultural means they have changed discourse and the boundaries of the public debate; they have changed the restraints of how we are allowed to think and eroded the shared dogmas of the Left and Old Right.

Two points here: first, this is a cultural revolution, and second, it rejects Leftist vocabulary. This is important because social pressures invert terms or reverse their meanings in order to control a population of faceless equals. Cultural revolution means that instead of fighting over existing political symbols, we decide what we want first and then cause it to rise organically through many avenues.

And then follows an attempt to simplify…

“We Are The Alt-Right”

Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right.

This expresses the formula that Alex Birch and I worked up for CORRUPT back in 2008:

  • Anti-democracy. Realizing that mob rule and trends do not successfully substitute for leadership by quality people.

  • Human Biodiversity (HBD). Recognizing the differences between groups, and more importantly individuals, and that every ability fits a normal distribution pattern in every population.

  • Ethnic Self-Determination. Every ethnic group needs its own self-rule and its own continent. This is not an argument against any specific ethnic group but a recognition that each group has its own self-interest and that under diversity these clash. Diversity does not work, no matter which groups are the ingredients.

  • Transcendental Purpose. We must find some way to connect to the beauty of this world and understand nature as an order superior to our own intentions, possibly including the metaphysical side of nature which is described by the various religions.

  • Anti-equality. Equality works for arithmetic, not people and not groups, including social castes, races, ethnic groups and families. People are different, with different abilities that are mostly genetic if not all genetic.

In a time when many people want to enter the Alt Right, and control it by redefining it, it is important to remember this bottom line: The Alt Right is against equality.

That dividing line separates the wannabes from the real deal. The wannabes will accept everything else but that; they want to eject certain ethnic groups, but are not against diversity itself; they want to throw out the elites, and then hold more elections to get new rotten elites. They want us to all be Orthodox Medieval Crusader Catholics, but then, equality is the basis of their social order (as long as one prays twice a day whilst facing Mecca, or, perhaps Pennsylvania). All of them get it wrong.

The Alt Right is a revolution against the past millennium. We do not believe in equality. From that, all else flows; equality is the illusion of our time dating back to before the Peasant Revolutions and the Magna Carta. It is the basis of all modernity, all Leftism, and the type of collectivized individualism that creates these things (which in turn arises from civilization success which enables lower orders to outnumber the higher).

This brings us back to the first opinion cited above: the Alt Right is a rejection of Modernity, with modernity not being a span of years or a type of technology, but a type of civilization design based in equality. Modernity is the cold night of the moon to the warm sun of the golden ages of humankind.

The Alt Right formed in order to get away from both mainstream conservatism, which is a hybrid of Leftism called “liberalism” or “neoconservatism,” as well as White Nationalism which essentially wants a classless society in the Leftist model in which all white people are merged together into a grey white race, sometimes called “ethno-Bolshevism.”

White Nationalism is filled with crazies and is at least 50% informants. It failed for a reason. If anything, White Nationalism is a stepping stone to reach the Alt Right. White Nationalism, and its precursor National Socialism, are still stuck in the modern paradigm of equality, “Systems” of rules and regulations, and allowing material orders like demotism — consumerism, democracy and social popularity/peer pressure — to determine what is right. The Alt Right wants us to find what is right, and then have society pursue that, instead of the other way around.

If anything, the Alt Right is more Nationalist than White Nationalism. It recognizes the need for national and regional identity in the identitarian model; it rejects the idea of forming a generic white race and then allowing modernity to exist as it has. It throws down the Constitution and burns the Declaration of Independence. The Alt Right is total rejection of modernity.

Unlike Neoreaction, the Alt Right gives a nod to Radical Traditionalism, the system of thought espoused by Rene Guenon, Aldous Huxley and Julius Evola. It wants a rising civilization against, capable of the greatness of the past.

For this reason, the Alt Right is challenging to define, because first and foremost it requires people to accept an entirely different view of civilization than anything they see around them. Then it leads them through rejection of what exists now, and some basic ideas of what they want instead. Then it shows them the substructure required to support those ideas, and suddenly, we have left modernity far behind, like Peter Pan sailing over London at night.

Those who want to control the Alt Right are trying to boil it down to a single principle, like how the Leftist ideology has “equality” at its core. This takes what is not-modern and places it back within the modern, effectively neutering it. This amounts to entryism by Leftism into the Alt Right and will sabotage it as surely as making it a Justin Bieber fan club.

Instead, the Alt Right suggests we keep going past all boundaries and all expectations. Our societies are doomed if they stay on the current path; this is a good time to dream, and for the first instance, to get it right. We are facing an evolutionary hurdle here: either we surpass modernity, or it buries us.

Perhaps the above will help some intrepid venturers make the journey.