One lesson we should all learn early in life is that if what you’re doing is not working, consider another method. This does not mean at the first sign of negative feedback, give up and do something different; it means that, if over time, what you are doing is not producing the desired results, change strategy. Square peg not fitting in round hole? You may have to think outside of your immediate task (cramming square peg in round hole) to the larger task at hand (which pegs go into which holes). This sounds so basic and fundamental, yet it is forgotten by most.
No clearer example of this can be felt in politics. Extreme leftists rant and cry in public, but in private spend much of their time bemoaning that few are involved, and wondering how to compel people to get involved. Environmentalists are known for being maudlin drunks who break into tears at the thought that most people don’t care at all about the environment, with their proof for this supposition being the lack of mainstream involvement in their effete and radicalized groups. Similarly, what’s left of conservatism – not bloody much – tends to wring its hands over the absolute disinterest that youth have for the conservative agenda.
Another potent example within politics is white nationalism. The WNs crowd around the fire, proclaim loudly their dogma, and then wait for the crowd to fall into step behind them for the final glorious race war. And why are they still alone, these brave WNs? The answer is quite simple: like liberals, they’re a one-note party, and while they understand their own dogma, they don’t understand how to apply it. The result is a radicalized, paranoid group of people who have no practical plan, and cannot even organize their own minds in order to organize their own political actions. (There are three real exceptions: Overthrow.com, Vanguard News, and the LNSGP, out of thousands of WN/NS groups.)
From my perspective, it’s a pathetic state of affairs that both those who uphold our traditions and those who wish to protect our environment are afflicted by the same mental disease. When one looks at the ideals of environmental and white nationalist groups philosophically, it’s clear that they are the two most related forms of belief out there today. Both are preservationists who seek to limit the selfishness agenda of modern society, and replace it not with bureaucracy but with a values system – a values system we share in common, in dramatic contrast to pluralistic systems, where the only shared value is a belief in pluralism. Both of these genres of politics could be easily drawn back from failure if they were willing to acknowledge what they lack.
As said above, it’s simple: one has to organize a clear political platform that includes all aspects of the political system, and then organize one’s agenda so as to contribute to society while reshaping it into something better. This means that one cannot speak up for green agendas alone, or ethnic preservation agendas (of which white nationalism is one) alone, but one must find some comprehensive way to remake society into something saner. One such method is to re-group white nationalism and environmental protection into the most time-proven system of governance we have, which is described as “tradition” because there is no other word for it. It’s a viewpoint that is outside of the modern viewpoint, but since the modern viewpoint could be summarized as cramming square pegs in round holes, we might characterize tradition as a broader mindset in which one can correctly identify what shape of peg goes into what hole.
Tradition refers to the ways in which our societies (in this case, Indo-European; the author is Indo-European) have existed for millennia, and is an all-encompassing viewpoint. It is not just political, or philosophical, or economic, or religious, but all of these. Its genesis is an awareness of humankind’s position not in a physical-economic order, but in a cosmic order, or in the patterns of life we find both in nature and in our own minds. In philosophical terms, traditionalism is a form of cosmic idealism, which means that it is a belief system where design-change in the external world (winning a battle, creating an idea, composing a symphony) is more important than personal comfort or survival; cosmic idealism is a dramatic contrast to Judaic moralism, as found in Christianity and liberalism, in which personal comfort and survival are more important than anything else (the one exception being, of course, when one fights for the “right” to live according to Judaic morality, at which point suicide and vengeance are celebrated as positive values).
Radical Traditionalism is a view of tradition from within a modern time. It recognizes that, in order to escape the modern crisis, we must first escape the modern mindset; this is the “radical” part, which means a total divorcing of values and expectations from what modernity has to offer. Radical in this context does not (necessarily) mean extremist action, but it means thought extremely removed from the norm. For most people living in a modern time, the concept of tradition is not one that makes sense on the first read, or the second, but sometime in the days following a reading after those. This is the barrier that radicalism is designed to transcend. As a natural consequence of this, Radical Traditionalist belief may seem “radical” to those in a modern time because it is far beyond what they are trained to comprehend.
Radical Traditionalism is a good solution because, unlike other political agendas which hope to make a few small alterations and then declare victory and go home, Radical Traditionalism recognizes the need to start thinking much differently about how we do things. It would take the entirety of our modern world and remake it into something more sensible, without abandoning our technology (although certainly limiting its use). Furthermore, Radical Traditionalism doesn’t confine itself to race, although race is an inseparable part of the ideology. It doesn’t confine itself to environmentalism, although concern and nurturing for our environment is an essential part of Radical Traditionalism. It is a holistic philosophy in that it addresses all human endeavors, and does so not from the perspective of the individual or of the collective, but of the whole: it places human individuals, collectives, and even our planet into a greater cosmic order.
This cosmic order, unlike those of humankind, is based upon pre-existing patterns found in nature. It is not arbitrary, like communism, nor of a one-track mind, like capitalism or any other state based on economic competition. It is not founded in the concept of dominion by the self over nature, nor does it pit humanity against its natural world. And, unlike white nationalism, its view of race is flexible; Radical Traditionalists believe races should be preserved, as racial differences are manifestations of a cosmic order called “karma” by some which is a spiritual approximation of what we know as evolution. Unlike moderns, traditionalists see evolution as a two-way street: one can evolve toward something higher, or devolve toward something more base and less noble. Naturally, they see the modern time as an example of the latter, and most credible evidence agrees with them.
Ultimately, however, despite its focus on cosmic ideals, Radical Traditionalism has a big leg over modernity in that it focuses on reality. Not simply physical reality, meaning the tangible things in front of us, but the reality of how our universe and physical environment operates. It doesn’t substitute spacy “ideology” for knowledge, and it doesn’t sidetrack itself into fighting for equality among people of varied abilities. Modern belief systems tend to take the form of “we should do (action) because (ideal),” but in tradition, the ideal is life itself, and what should be done is what is effective given how this order of life itself operates.
In this, Radical Traditionalism is similar to one type of nihilism. Since the word “nihilism” means different things to different people, it is important to define this type of nihilism as an outlook and a perceptual tool, not a conclusion or an ideal. Those who hold Nothingness up as an ideal, and as an assessment of life itself, are probably better referred to as “fatalists” because they do not believe any value can be found, and therefore believe their choices are irrelevant (a fancy way of giving up). Outlook nihilists believe nihilism is a way of removing illusion and looking into reality itself, from which we are separated by the frailty of (a) our own perception and (b) the errors of our interpretation of external reality. Where conclusion-nihilists take up nihilism as a means of ending further analysis of their existence, outlook nihilists use it as a means to look deeper into existence.
Nihilism of this form could be expressed this way: Upon waking up, I realized that nothing had any inherent value except for its presence as part of reality itself, such as a chair being useful for sitting upon, or food useful for eating because eating prolongs life and thus perception. While I was tempted to stay in this valueless state, I realized that to uphold a valueless state was in itself a value, therefore a valueless state cannot exist for long. For this reason, instead of rejecting reality, I rejected values outside of reality, and now try to see things only for what they are. This is the outlook nihilism of an experienced person.
Fatalism, or conclusion-nihilism, is solely the realm of life’s failures. People who cannot make heads or tails of life, and have failed to find a place within it, find refuge in claiming that it never made any sense anyway and therefore they cannot be expected to participate – as if some cosmic parent were watching over them, trying to force them into it. People of this mindset are clearly quite lost, as they have not realized that their lives are their own and exist without need of interpretation, and furthermore, they’ve lost the ability to see the world beyond their own little existence. It may be that not all of them are stupid – most are simply misguided, and young, and underconfident, if not outright deficient. Those who haven’t grown out of fatalism by their thirties are probably mental defectives.
When we look at nihilism and radical traditionalism, what jumps out at us is that both are ways of negating the values we have in a modern time and returning to a cosmic order based on the actual function of our reality. There is no morality in either that places the individual higher than a noble task; the opposite is true, since a nihilist recognizes that morality is not inherent and basically wishful thinking by those who fear they might succumb to violence. Radical Traditionalism, like nihilism, emphasizes a quieting of the internal dialogue over how to value life, and takes life at face value: things are simply what they are.
These forms of thinking are far more advanced than what most believe in a modern time. Most of the trousered apes of modernity have been taught that, thanks to technology and morality, we are slowly leaving a dark age behind and coming into a utopic state. This kind of worldview is called a “progressive” one, in that it believes in progress from a bad state to a good state. Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism shrug aside such concerns by recognizing that the basic dimensions of life remain as they always have been, and no new choices outside of technology have been presented to us. Evolve or devolve. It’s all a factor of reality, no matter what moral excuses or numbers on spreadsheets we construct to support our own desires for what reality “should” be.
These beliefs are of the type that will dominate in the future. Humanity has had a thousand year hiatus from reality, first in the form of revolt by the masses, then via religious delusion and Judeo-Christianity, and finally through our economies, free enterprise, suburbs and wealth derived from fossil fuels. However, true to form, the delusional system of modernity brought us to a number of bad mistakes, and the end result has been the squandering of our fossil fuels and continued degeneration of our societies. Therefore, as the illusion ends, we return to common sense. If we want this common sense to succeed, we need holistic ideologies such as Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism to take the place of one-note philosophies like White Nationalism and Environmentalism, as they only increase divisions among us.