2,503 words
Amid the social turmoil of the late 1960s, the German Communist student Rudi Dutschke called for a “long march through the institutions” as the preferred strategy of ensuring the victory of global Marxist revolution. The success of this initiative is no more prominent in the West than in today’s academia, where Frankfurt School Critical Theory and its related trend, postmodernism, maintain an iron grip of control over the intellectual atmosphere, viciously rooting out all forms of dissent through outing, outrageous accusations, public shaming, firing, and, all too often, the tragic consequence of permanently destroying one’s future. Should any uppity academic arrogate to oppose the systemic “deconstruction” of the heteronormative, cisnormative, patriarchal, ethnocentric, elitist, religious West, their villainous resistance to tolerance and progress will be justly silenced.
Naturally, such quasi-Stalinist practices (we will remove “quasi” once incarceration, and not the loss of one’s livelihood, becomes the normal penalty for opposition) make a bad impression on those yet unconvinced of the merits of these intellectual traditions. Popular figures such as Jordan Peterson and Pat Buchanan are well known for their criticisms of critical theory, with the unfortunate consequence that their obstinacy in truly engaging with the school has resulted in more than a few jokes and the vehement refusal of most men on the Right to see anything valuable in the enemy’s unwavering criticism and deconstruction of the modern West’s various sacred cows. Peterson is often mocked by Leftist intellectuals and their followers for his tirade against “postmodern neo-Marxism,” quick to see the movement as nothing but a nihilistic and epistemologically skepticist cult with no real conviction for anything but frenetic revolution. Pat Buchanan, in The Death of the West, [1] acknowledges the Frankfurt School’s success in undermining the various institutions of our civilization, but can only pathetically anathematize critical theory as “anything but benign” [2] in the typical fashion of a paranoid and impotent American “conservative” who is chronically unable to realize the inevitable, downward-spiraling consequences of the Enlightenment project and fears for the destruction of his comfortable, consumer lifestyle. Accusing the cultural Marxists of preferring psychological conditioning to philosophical argument, [3] Buchanan fails to see the irony when he continues to merely restate the anti-Western positions of critical theorists in order to generate panic in his readership without producing any real understanding or alternative, openly remarking a few pages later that “traditionalists have yet to discover effective countermeasures.” [4]
But they have. If “traditionalists” have yet to discover effective methods to defend the West’s traditional values, it is only because Buchanan conflates traditionalism — more specifically, Traditionalism — with his own “paleoconservatism” and worship of classical liberal American principles. It is indisputable that Republicans, Right-wing libertarians, and other mainstream conservatives are more concerned with the performance of the stock market and a vague notion of “liberty” than they are with the much more tangible and profound issues of demographic change, the family, spiritual well-being, and other matters factoring into the question of whether or not the proverbial “pursuit of happiness” means anything more than the hollow satisfaction offered by monetary gain; consequently, they are by no means willing to actively engage with self-professed enemies of Western Civilization through anything but the occasional pseudointellectual garbage (of which The Death of the West is a slightly above average example) regurgitated by “thinkers” like Dinesh D’Souza or Ben Shapiro. This is owed in no small part to the time-honored American tradition of anti-intellectualism and the fact that any real action would cost them their own, slightly older, modernist ideals. However, once one is willing to recognize that a true conservatism entails a rejection of all revolutionary tendencies and thus begins to look outside the camp of those satisfied with self-destructive American principles, one sees that the Right itself has access to an entire critical tradition of its own, older than that of the Frankfurt School, which needs only to be revived to fight academic Leftism with its own methods: a radical disillusionment with the bourgeois narrative of progress combined with a systematic effort to establish an intellectual elite of theorists through securing as much influence as possible by openly working to deconstruct all modern myths.
You can buy The World in Flames: The Shorter Writings of Francis Parker Yockey here.
That is to say, if the Right can look beyond the specific, unappealing conclusions of critical theorists and postmodernists and instead take inspiration from their methods as a whole, this tradition could be recovered. But, once again, what is meant by “Right” is no milquetoast Americanist conservatism, nor even the illiberal ethnonationalism of the “alt-right,” which are both essentially modernist. Rather, what might be termed “Right-wing critical theory” is fully and fundamentally counter-revolutionary, in the intellectual vein of the Traditionalists René Guénon and Julius Evola. To the extent that the “West” is identified with the individualistic, secularist paradigm of European society following the Enlightenment and French Revolution, Right-wing critical theory can even be termed anti-Western. Opposing material and moral progress, the bourgeois invention of the nation-state, the artificial dichotomy of capitalism and communism, the secular rationalism of the Enlightenment and its arrogant dismissal of other cultural traditions, stale Christian moralism, biological racism, the unjust oppression of colonized peoples by mercantile European empires, the primacy of science, and a plethora of other ideas specific to the modern West, Evola and Guénon frequently sound like trendy postmodern academics or other “cultural Marxist” intellectuals. If the Traditional Right is to crush — or “deconstruct” — the ideologies and institutions that led to the genesis of decadent modernity, then they would do well to imitate the critical theorists by looking at our own critical tradition as developed by these seminal thinkers and thus catch the enemy off guard by using his own weapons. In what follows, I will list five excerpts (though I could list many, many more) that demonstrate Guénon and Evola’s uncanny skill in challenging the distorted and puerile Weltanschauung of Western bourgeois civilization.
Let us begin with the central myth of modernity. Regarding the idea of progress, Evola, in Revolt Against the Modern World, states:
No idea is as absurd as the idea of progress, which together with its corollary notion of the superiority of modern civilization, has creative its own “positive” alibis by falsifying history, by insinuating harmful myths in people’s minds, and by proclaiming itself sovereign at the crossroads of the plebeian ideology from which it originated. . . . Our contemporaries must truly have become blind if they really thought they could measure everything by their standards and consider their own civilization as privileged, as the one to which the history of the world was preordained and outside of which there is nothing but barbarism, darkness, and superstition. [5]
Written during the existential crisis of faith experienced by the champions of liberalism in the wake of the Second World War, Guénon appraises the idea of material progress:
However, let us consider things for a moment from the standpoint of those whose ideal is material “welfare,” and who therefore rejoice at all the improvements to life furnished by modern “progress”; are they quite sure they are not being duped? Is it true that, because they dispose of swifter means of communication and other things of the kind, and because of their more agitated and complicated manner of life, men are happier today than they were formerly? The very opposite seems to us to be true: disequilibrium cannot be a condition of real happiness. Moreover, the more needs a man has, the greater the likelihood that he will lack something, and thereby be unhappy; modern civilization aims at creating more and more artificial needs, and as we have already said, it will always create more needs than it can satisfy, for once one has started on this path, it is very hard to stop, and, indeed, there is no reason for stopping at any particular point. [6]
Next, for those who know all too well the Leftist lecture on how everything is merely a “social construct,” let us take a look at Evola’s views on the modern nation-state, taken from the same work, wherein the “nation” is only a result of the degeneration of the higher ideal of the Imperium, or Empire:
Modern nationalism is not based on a natural unity, but on an artificial and centralizing one . . . Regardless of its myths, the substance of modern nationalism is not an ethnos [emphasis original] but a demos, and its prototype always remains the plebian one produced by the French revolution. . . . It is well known that in Europe during the nineteenth century, nationalism was synonymous with revolution . . . What emerges in nationalism is an opposite aspect, namely, the cumulative and collectivizing element. [7]
What may be most surprising is how similar the Guénonian-Evolian critique of European colonialism sounds to modern liberal-academic critiques of the same; far from praising the conquering spirit of the European people, Guénon and Evola strictly condemn the cruel spread of materialism and “progress” to other parts of the globe, the subsequent economic exploitation, the laughable intimations of Western superiority, and the perceived unbridgeable differences between East and West. Any reader who has taken a college course or two on an Eastern culture will probably have heard of the Gramscian Marxist and postmodernist writer Edward Said, who in 1978 published Orientalism (a holy book in today’s universities), accusing Western civilization, which supposedly sees itself as masculine, active, rationalistic, and progressive, of caricaturizing the East — fundamentally Other — as feminine, passive, superstitious, and regressive, and using this depiction to justify colonialism. Long before Said penned Orientalism, however, Guénon, as early as 1927, had already dismissed the arrogance of modernist Western scholars who had failed to understand the East, blaming the supposed divide between Occident and Orient on the West’s abnormality:
There is no essential opposition between [traditional civilizations] . . . On the other hand, a civilization that recognizes no higher principles, but is in reality based on a negation of principles, is by this very fact ruled out from all mutual understanding with other civilizations . . . There was no reason for opposition between East and West as long as there were traditional civilizations in the West as well as in the East; the opposition has meaning only as far as the modern West is concerned, for it is far more an opposition between two mentalities than between two more or less clearly defined geographical entities. [8]
Often misrepresented as a sadistic, militarist fascist bent on oppressing others for the mere hell of it, Evola, in Recognitions: Studies on Men and Problems from the Perspective of the Right, critiques Western imperialism:
. . . but especially with regard to the Orient the idea of “superiority of civilization” was a mere presumption of the white races, as was the conviction that Christianity made the Occident the bearer of the true faith, authorizing it to a haughty detachment from the rest of humanity, which it considered “pagan” and barbaric. . . . The myth of superiority, which in the end justified every sort of abuse and oppression, rested on the progressivist superstition — that is on the idea that science and technological civilization constitute the last word on the history of the world, and secure the Europeans of the global right to a general “civilizing” work. [9]
You can buy Greg Johnson’s From Plato to Postmodernism here
It is quite obvious that the similarities with the critical theorists extend only as far as the act of criticism itself, only in recognizing that there is a crucial problem with the world today and the subsequent initiation of intellectual-cultural militancy against it; thus, the critical Right must in truth act as a counter-criticism, combating the pernicious assumptions of the modern world as well as of the Marxist theorists themselves. One clear example is found in Evola’s doctrine of the regression of the castes, viewing bourgeois society as a morphological anomaly of civilizations but even more harshly condemning the Marxist-led proletarian movements which seek to replace it. [10] Nor could the formation of a true Right-wing critical theory flourish without a concomitant spiritual awakening; as today’s subversive academics are fueled by a religious white guilt and bourgeois pity for “oppressed” minorities, the Right ought to draw strength from a source indescribably higher.
One might object that the formation of an intellectual elite in today’s increasingly dystopian environment is fanciful at best and delusional at worst. After all, Guénon, in The Crisis of the Modern World, explicitly advocated for the formation of an élite intellectuelle to make contact with spiritual representatives of the East in order to direct the West back onto a course of normality, eventually giving up on this possibility late in life. Likewise, Evola’s idea of the Männerbund (though this was less intellectual for him) has hardly come to fruition. Furthermore, open critical dissent — that is, not merely expositions of one’s own ideology, but the direct deconstruction of the dominant paradigms peddled by the Leftist elite — isn’t safe for a family man with a job.
However, as the technocratic surveillance state tends increasingly towards practical omnipotence and omnipresence, and those preferring to stick to the shadows in some remote corner of America become increasingly unable to do so, one must ask oneself what alternatives are left. Nor should anyone mistakenly believe that a Right-wing critical theory would discourage complementary action; as the 60s generation marched in the streets, their allied intellectuals fervently published in their defense. It is also worth considering that the revolutionaries themselves faced the same dangers of loss of their livelihoods, reputations, or even lives through active dissent. If true men of the Right can ride the tiger by adopting the same methodologies of deconstruction and disillusionment as their subversive opponents, and use their increased popularity to gain ever more prominent positions with society, then as long as the counter-revolution sticks to truly Traditional principles, perhaps the tide can be turned. Counter-Currents already recognizes that the culture war is truly crucial.
If modernity is a prison, then we must survey the movements of our guards to learn how to escape.
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Notes
[1] Patrick J. Buchanan, “Four Who Made a Revolution,” in The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. New York: St. Martin’s, 2002.
[2] Buchanan, 80.
[3] Buchanan, 83.
[4] Buchanan, 90.
[5] Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International, 1995. p. xxx.
[6] René Guénon, The Crisis of the Modern World. Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2004. p. 93.
[7] Evola, 339.
[8] Guénon, 21-22.
[9] Julius Evola, Recognitions: Studies on Men and Problems from the Perspective of the Right. London: Arktos Media, 2017. p. 90.
[10] The regression of castes permeates Evola’s work. For an overview, see “The Regression of the Castes” in Revolt. See also “The Historiography of the Right” in Recognitions for an example of the appropriation of Marxist methodologies for Right-wing purposes.
18 comments
We really don’t need any more theory. We already have a praxis: National Socialism. By creating an ‘aristocracy’ of work, performance and merit, it transcended both the empty aristocracy of the Evola worldviews as well as the economism of Marxism/capitalism.
Hear, hear !
Is that a joke? You think aristocracy of spirit is empty – which amounts to little else than condemning traditional hierarchies to be empty – and should be replaced by hierarchy of work and performance? Capitalism and Marxism are just two particular attempts at doing that, but the same Satanic principles can’t be used to construct new forms of anti- and counter-traditional ideologies.
Rather than keeping the principles and opposing two manifestations of them, we need to change the principles, or rather, rediscover the true principles and discard false ones. Work and performance will undoubtedly be indicative of some levels of the hierarchy, but the striving impetus behind a an order and a formation cannot be mere opposition to past ideologies or the creation of some social justice “aristocracy”.
What you are failing to understand is that:
1. National Socialism failed. To whatever extent it had strengths, these were because of the innovations of its founders. Those who actually formulated the fairly broad range of philosophies and political strategies that are now considered part of the National Socialist canon would be thinking quite differently now considering the new realities of our age. This is because they were interested in actually engaging with contemporary affairs to counter Marxism, rather than going quietly into that good night.
2. The reason we are losing so badly is precisely because those who are supposed to be preserving and advancing the interests of people of European descent do not behave like everyone else. We currently all exist in enemy territory (even in our own states), largely because of the complacent attitude of people like you. Do you think Hindu nationalists don’t constantly reimagine and disseminate their ideas in order to advance them against alternatives? How do you think the left succeeded in the first place? Modern doctrines of political correctness look nothing like mainstream leftist discourse just 50 years ago. Why do you think that is? The answer is because constantly redeveloping and advancing one’s “ideology” is the only way of sustaining it and increasing its foot hold.
3. Perhaps the single biggest threat facing people of European descent is their lack of a collective consciousness and their related inability to even recognize, let alone pursue, their own interests. The only way to maintain a collective sense of self is to continually articulate and re-articulate a sense of one’s past, present, and future. Time moves on, realities change, new facts are discovered, and new possibilities are imagined. These changes need to be engaged with by any nation or family of nations that has an interest in continuing to exist in the world. People like you are simply incapable of understanding that power comes from a war of words in the public sphere.
4. Success in politics is not achieved by having an idea and then implementing it. The belief that this IS how politics works, is why there is literally no right wing powerbase anywhere in the formerly white world. To whatever extent this may work in business or normal life, constant rhetorical work and refinement, what the left calls “advocacy” and “activism”, is the only way to acquire and to keep power in a political context. Our enemies wouldn’t dream for a moment of resting on their current rhetorical arsenal, let alone one that was developed in over half a century ago.
What astonishes me is how people talking about “national socialism” being the solution to anything have sufficient self confidence to even leave your house, let alone express opinions in public. Your ideology is rhetorical cancer.
The enemies of white people literally keep your beloved ideology in the public consciousness and associate it with all those on the dissident right precisely because it is so effective at harming our interests in the modern world. The ideology to which you refer, and the tactic of clinging to it, has failed so miserably that I wonder if you are actually genuinely on the dissident right or intentionally subversive.
If you are either too lazy or stupid to keep thinking and reassessing the world then that’s your problem. Your shortcoming does not mean it is prudent to prevent others from doing so. The only reason you should feel confident in what you have said in response to this article is if you were intending to harm the interests of white people, which is always possible these days.
I’ve only skimmed the main post, and want to go back later in the week when I have time and read it closely. I’m still unsure to what extent I agree/disagree with it. But I’ve read your lengthy comment here (as well as several of your long and suggestive earlier main posts), and though I agree with some of it, I disagree with much else.
1. I agree Nazism is absolutely NOT the way forward for white preservationists. The vast bulk of thoughtful as well as practical-minded WPs agree. However, that may be more a matter of contemporary optics than principle; ie, timeless correctness. I personally oppose Nazism (albeit, I wouldn’t actively do so if such a movement arose – anything that is popular and prowhite I will provisionally support, given our race’s dire straits; I speak in terms of my beliefs and preferences in abstract political philosophy), both on moral grounds (intellectually I’m an agnostic, but emotionally I remain somewhat Christian, and I don’t think Nazism can ever be seen as acceptable for those who are fundamentally Christ-centered), and pragmatic ones. I think it has become too poisoned in the public mind of the West ever to be resuscitated. Best to move on to something different in approach and presentation.
But what Hamburger Today might instead *really* be arguing for is the idea of a radical secular politics that is, essentially, Nationalist + Socialist (but not necessarily “neo-Nazi” understood as a literal attempt at resurrecting the Third Reich). Whatever the immense ideological deficiencies and moral crimes (exaggerated, but not wholly so) of the Nazis, the fundamental ideological idea(s) behind their movement are not wrong. These ideas are that 1) history {esp history in our age, and perhaps for the indefinitely foreseeable future} is a biological story of racial/tribal struggle for resources and dominance (we see this with chimps, we see this with men), and thus whites must develop teleological racial states organized around the ‘telos’ of assuring our racial survival and ultimate planetary control, and 2) practically, this means states which are Racist (or “Nationalist” in the Nazi sense), but also “Socialist”, in which the latter term is understood NOT necessarily in either the Soviet sense of state control of the means of production, or in the idiotic Bernie Sanders sense of gargantuan state welfare taxation-robbery of the productive on behalf of the parasitical (including overpaid and unnecessary government “workers”), but rather, as a sign that all individual human activity, esp economic activity, within the racial state must be subordinated to the overarching state telos.
In this sense, calling oneself a “National Socialist” is less akin to actual, historical Hitlerism, and more of a statement of “Race First!”, an exaltation of racial survival understood to supersede any type of individualism, esp wrt the economy (which as arranged today is mostly an instrument of further white dispossession). As a Heritage American, I’m pro-free market and individual liberty myself, but I see HT’s point, and agree that, theoretically anyway, we do need all-white teleological racial states (not just all-white ethnostates, but such ethnostates in which all private activity, including the commercial kind, is not … outlawed … but rather, subordinated to the common public good of white preservation). Such states will come to look somewhat … Nazi, perhaps not even in most aspects of daily life, but fundamentally. The Third Reich was devoted to white victory in the racial/planetary struggle, and any post-American [white] Ethnostate had better be, too. Of course, this can (and will have to) be achieved without resurrecting hopelessly discredited Nazi rhetoric or symbolism.
2. You make many assertions in your second paragraph. I’m not sure there is so very great a difference between modern “PC” or “intersectionality” and leftist discourse in the 60s (perhaps you meant the Red Decade of the 30s …). Yes, times are different. Leftys in the 60s to my knowledge never thought you could ‘choose’ your gender. But the Left is defined by its revolutionary treason to the inherited order of society. In the 60s, that meant actively allying with all global anti-American forces, esp the Viet Cong and assorted Third World Marxist/nationalist filth. Today, this could (and occasionally does) mean allying with radical Muslims, though given the hyper-uncongenial ideology of the Salafists and Wahabists and Shia-supremacists, alliance possibilities there for the auto-genocidal Treason Left are limited. Instead, they seek to undermine and destroy Western civilization (in its totality, let us note: the Left today are full-spectrum civilization traitors, not only race traitors – though race is the “key to the kingdom”, so to speak), and thus they ally with any historically marginalized group, the latter to be used as revolutionary battering rams against the allegedly still-existent Straight White Racist Patriarchy (which in objective fact barely exists anymore).
I frankly don’t see very much difference between a treasonous Tom Hayden type trying to undermine US victory in ‘Nam, and a white BLM supporter today. Same treasonous disposition, same anti-American attitude, similar performative, disruptive tactics.
3. Yes, whites do not have collective consciousness (HT certainly would agree), and yes, in (but I think only in) Western societies, power accrues to those who construct the “moral narratives”, which I why I have been arguing for decades that we need a new ethics for racial survival – though I argue that classical Christianity absolutely possesses the theological resources to provide that ethics. Christianity today is mostly a racial enemy of WP, but I argue that is due to liberal intellectual and personnel infiltration of the churches, rather than from any inherent deficiency of the faith. A Christian cannot embrace Hitlerism, but he can certainly marry white and produce white children; vote for legitimate white interests (including ending foreign ‘immigration’-invasions); speak truth to power about racial realities; and defend himself and his community from alien racial criminality. He can also propose and defend universal ethnostatism as the key to global human comity and the minimization of human conflict and rights abuses (“Blessed are the peacemakers” said Our Lord).
OTOH, I don’t agree that we must continually re-articulate our cause, any more than we need re-invent the wheel. Some truths once discovered are eternal. Western man has lost many old truths; our task is to rediscover them, and bring them back into public currency.
4. I’m not sure how to read your Point #4. If you mean the work of teaching and defending, say, the basic principles of society and civilized order is constant work, well, yes, who would disagree? Certainly no schoolteacher. Liberty must forever be won anew, as Jefferson understood. It seems the same with white preservation (though other races seem instinctively to defend their own – a sign of the white man’s evolutionary inferiority as well as, paradoxically, moral greatness).
I’m a WP, but not only a WP. I care about conservatism, which is why I am a WP. WP is the foundation of conservatism, but there is so much more about my nation and civilization I wish to defend from leftist depredation and ruin. I don’t wish to “drown” those “babies” in the bathwater of WP. I don’t want to sacrifice (too many) other aspects of the broader rightist agenda (Christian decency, individual liberty, free enterprise prosperity) in service to white preservation. We can have it all, eventually. And we really don’t need Evola et al. to win.
I think you should read and consider my lengthy comment in response to yours. See below.
Re “Rudi Dutschke called for a long march through the institutions” :
I learn something new every day. Like most people I’ve always believed that Gramsci came up with that formulation.
Your pen name must be taken from Traditionalist Ananda Coomaraswamy (the anglicised spelling of Tamil names no doubt varies). Which book of his would you most recommend?
He and Aleister Crowley had a tempestuous relationship. Cherchez la femme!
It was Gramsci who coined that. The German activist was merely quoting.
Wiki disagrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions
As I see it Philosophy from the pre-Socratics up until Nietzsche was “constructive”. By that I mean it sought to construct a viable argument for knowledge, beauty and morality. In contrast the philosophers who follow Nietzsche and Marx criticise the very premise of all Philosophy: that reason can discover truth. In his later life Derrida talked about a “constructive deconstructionism”, but the fallacy ought to be obvious from the oxymoron. I, therefore, must reject your conclusion that we ought to adopt “the same methodologies of deconstruction and disillusionment as [our] subversive opponents”. It seems you do, however, come close to an answer in this piece. It is not disillusioning method we must use but an affirmative idea of our cause, unifying around our history, our traditions and our ethnos.
Although, while we disagree on theoretical methodology, I do agree that we can use their tactics, if not their Philosophy, against them. We must have our own march through the institutions, not deconstructing but reconstructing, and, as you so rightly say, it must be no mere “Classical Liberalism” that we reconstruct but a truly rooted and traditional culture.
There is evasion, inherent and dishonest, running through critical theory of whatever political stripe, and it’s evident here in the author’s wishful extrapolation, echoing intellectual rigor as the first casualty in Gramsci’s “march through institutions.” (Okay, so Buchanan and Peterson fall short. So what? Are they exemplary?)
I’ve noticed in the last few months the inevitable resignation as well as healthy resolution in a lot of wn writing, here and elsewhere. It seems right and logical to understand accept that their institutions need neither comment, nor support or involvement from us, much less any re-taking, reforming, emulation or retro-fitting.
Let the universities continue to die, and let their functionaries, lackeys and slaves remain trapped inside, slowly suffocating, for as long as it takes.
” But, once again, what is meant by “Right” is no milquetoast Americanist conservatism, nor even the illiberal ethnonationalism of the “alt-right,” ….Evola’s views on the modern nation-state, taken from the same work, wherein the “nation” is only a result of the degeneration of the higher ideal of the Imperium, or Empire..”
Very good essay, and a very tough subject. It is one of the core contradiction&weakness of the modern dissident right. It brings us over again into difficulty when it comes to define ourselves as ‘right-wing’.
Strange enough, our white-nationalism, and our biological-evolutionary mindset&arguments for racialism, places us in the camp of modernists, albeit not of the individualist sort (a trait which we associate with the liberal-left, the Enlightenment, etc. and we use it as a marker for “right vs. left “). We have a different myth yet in fact it is of the same modern class ( just as in the case of Marxism, btw).
I have no answer myself for this issue, only that I see it as important and in need to be clarified. Otherwise it may end up undermining our whole movement from within.
Excellent! Just change one sentence: not ‘perhaps the tide can be turned’ but ‘the tide will be turned – and is being turned.’ Our very own counter-deconstruction of the ‘modernist’ discourse – historical-materialism & cultural nihilism’ has resulted in our total victory across the entire field of political philosophy & culture studies. Our beaten enemy has been forced to resort to censorship, blackmail and violence – they have irretrievable lost the moral high ground in the eyes of our peoples. It had been my pleasure to modestly contribute to our victory with my own writing (‘The Sunset of Tradition’ & ‘Alba Rosa’) & work. All of us, writers, editors, readers, activists & organizers alike, across all our myriad websites/organizations/wolf packs, should feel pride in this achievement. Our victory in the abstract may continue to be obscured by blanket censorship for quite some time, but it provides the necessary basis for our victory in the concrete. Ever year passing now is bringing us nearer to the downfall of our enemy – when all the bells will ring, great crowds will cheer and solemn thanksgiving will be said. The wheel of history may turn very slowly but it also grinds exceedingly fine. The darkest-before-dawn odds may seem daunting but the more numerous the enemy forces arrayed against us now, the more complete our victory will be later. Our victory in the concrete should eradicate the enemy once and for all. Our victory should not leave some matters undecided, some conflicts unresolved and some enemies at large – it should wipe away the evil that we face totally and forever. We need to achieve nothing less than a reset history itself – we should settle for nothing less than the total eradication of globalist nihilism. And would we really care for an easy victory? There would be little honour in that.
Things are also darkest before they get even darker. As William Gayley Simpson said generations, the West was already dead in terms of spirit and that we were being “dissolved” by Communism. In more trenchant terms, “The Jews are going to have their way with us” as they did with Russia.
He did not think it could be stopped, but that we should plan and organize for the Afterwards since there would be survivors (of a terrible genocide).
I find it ironic that even as science is providing us with irrefutable arguments for ethnonationalism (Frank Salter, Kevin B. MacDonald, anyone?) some are rushing to reject the rationalistic view of the world that might as well be the natural weltanschauung of white European man.
The problem with today’s society is not one of excessive disenchantment, but an enchantment with the wrong ideas, from which rationalism and empiricism might very well save us.
Agreed. How about misenchantment then?
It’s part of who we are, but we also need religion. Political Correctness is a secular religion derived from Puritanism with the transcendent removed, but with the irrational, especially the sense of sin, remaining. A religion without salvation, but with the lust for superiority and condemnation encouraged.
Not everyone is cut out to be Promethean or to find fulfillment in that. Those that are and do may well turn into the “Titans” who see the rest of their People as ants to be crushed or amalgamated into the rest of humanity against their will.
Whether material progress is “progress” or not is beside the point. From at least the Greeks onwards, Westerners have been inveterate tinkerers and innovators. It’s what we do. It’s who we are. No serious change, no West. Change has its positive aspects and its negative aspects. The challenge is to maximize the former and minimize the latter. We’ve not been doing a very good job of that since the early 20th century. If we don’t get it done soon, it will be too late.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.