
F. O. C. Darley, The Last Words of Captain Nathan Hale, the Hero-Martyr of the American Revolution (1861)
1,452 words
“There is only personal history, and consequently only personal politics.” — Oswald Spengler[1]
The Leftists have an unending supply of tedious takes in regards to Charlottesville, the Confederacy, and January 6. These usually involve pontificating about the rule of law, our sacred constitutional order, and a more perfect union. If they feel faker than Ron DeSantis’ smile, it’s because they are. “Whenever a liberal waves an American flag instead of a Black Lives Matter or rainbow flag, it’s because they want something.”[2]
What does loyalty to a constitution and a country really mean? Deconstruction is a game that two can play. Let’s make this concrete by asking not “What does the Constitution say?” or “How does the system work?”, but rather “Who is American?”
For the Constitution, the “who” can be the Founders, our ancestors who made the Founders’ vision possible, namely the system which currently benefits by exploiting the Constitution. “Who” can also be the intended beneficiaries of the Constitution, which is white America.
For the country, do we mean the United States federal government or the American nation? And how do we define who is an American? Is it just someone who has a US passport, or is it something more?
Focusing on what the Constitution says and how the government works while ignoring who the American people really are conceals the truth. It’s obvious that we’re not all in this together, because there are significant questions about who this “we” is. Perhaps there never even was a “we” to begin with.
One can only truly be loyal to people. Living people are more important than dead things. Only living beings can reciprocate loyalty. Loyalty to the Constitution as a “what” or to constitutionalism as a “how” is as ludicrous as feeling loyalty to a pet rock rather than a faithful dog, or one’s family and nation.
The United States has a very good constitution, but it does not exist outside of history. It is subject to the same natural laws as any other thing. One of those natural laws is decay, followed by death.
In Political Theology Carl Schmitt argued that “[t]he exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology” due to its move towards neutrality after the Wars of Religion. If so, then the founding of constitutional orders is analogous to the founding of religions. To place the Constitution outside of time is to treat it as a religion. Are the Founders not revered as prophets? Do different political factions not squabble over who is the real heir to the Founders and who is following Americanism correctly, just as Sunnis and Shiites argue over the Prophet Mohammed’s succession and about who is a real Muslim and who is a heretic?
History for American conservatives might as well have begun in 1776, which has become a messianic Year Zero. Everything before it is shrouded in pagan darkness and judged in terms of how it helped the nation to move toward the culmination of the liberal revelation.
This linear view of history is silly. Time is marked by multiple cycles. Machiavelli observed that religions have a lifespan, that there had been a succession of religious revolutions, and that the infallible Catholic Church of his day was long overdue for one. This was one of his most controversial, yet overlooked, positions as he was toying with heresy. But he was nevertheless vindicated with the Protestant Reformation.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here.
Such an argument seems unmarkable in today’s climate of religious disbelief. But say the same thing about the US Constitution, and suddenly everyone loses their minds. This is due to the obvious implication that the US Constitution is neither infallible nor eternal.
There have been many constitutional orders, along with many other types of political orders. They all come and go. France has had five republics, and ancient Egypt had numerous pharaonic dynasties. For all their variety, the one thing every political order has in common — aside from considering itself sacrosanct — is that they all die eventually, one way or another.
In fact, the original constitutional order of 1789 has already perished, despite shallow appearances to the contrary. In The Age of Entitlement, Christopher Caldwell argues that the civil rights era essentially rewrote the old Constitution. How many planks can you replace on the Theseus before it becomes a new ship? I don’t know, but the civil rights era involved more than merely replacing a few planks. It was a complete overhaul.
The Constitution has acquired a false appearance of being above history because seems to have lasted so long. This is a myth. The original Constitution was good, but it was not special, and thus does not deserve special treatment. Besides the fact that it is already dead, or at least mutilated. The second Constitution of the 1960s is an abomination against nature and a weapon that is being wielded against the intended beneficiaries of the first Constitution.
What grounds, then, do the Left have for their high-minded pontificating about the rule of law, loyalty, and treason?
Aside from the mythical divine kingships of the Golden Age, we are all usurpers, traitors, and conquerors. The Founders were undeniably traitors to the British Crown. The British monarchy of the time had emerged from a string of Norman dynasties whose Realpolitik inspired Game of Thrones. The Normans conquered the Saxons and replaced their laws, just as the Saxons had done with the Romans. The Romans, in turn, had brutally subjugated the Celts. The Romans had likewise overthrown their Etruscan king — which makes them traitors, too. Even Zeus is a traitor in that he overthrew his father, Kronos, as the leader of the gods.
There are many political orders to which one can profess loyalty and then pontificate about. Whether you are a hero or a villain, a patriot or a traitor, seems to be a matter of perspective. In an alternative view, it seems to be a matter of winning and then writing history, as was done at Nuremberg. Power does not come from law. Law comes from power.
Unless we pull the wool back over our eyes and return to waving whatever flag is pressed into our hands, we are close to throwing ourselves headlong into nihilism and anarchy. Can this be averted?
One solution is to ask that difficult, essential question of who “we” are, and then once that is answered, remain loyal to ourselves. Are we the son of Kronos, or the brother of Poseidon and Neptune? It is by asking this question that the traitor and rebel are transformed into the patriot and the loyalist. It is like transmuting “the whore” into “the virgin” in hermetical alchemy, through a purifying act of solar will. Carl Schmitt had political theology, so I see no reason not to have political alchemy.
Does this mean we should embrace blind, fanatical tribalism, as the Zionists do? My country right or wrong, no matter how wrong?
A guiding principle here is to ask yourself whether you are good and if the entity you identify with is also good. What if your clan, lord, or government are evil when you are good? Things are rarely absolutely black and white. History is not a simplistic Marvel movie or Hollywood’s simplistic narrative about the Second World War. But if you are generally good, then there can come a point when some things will simply seem too evil to identify with. And because you can no longer identify with it, you can’t really be loyal to it.
There will almost always be people or factions competing for our loyalty, and it is often a zero-sum game. A man cannot fully serve two masters, as there will eventually come a point when a choice between the two must be made. Delegating that decision to the rules one follows is an attempt to flee from responsibility to the haven of supposed neutrality. But in doing so, one is simply turning the decision over to whoever made those rules, and/or whoever currently benefits from them. It is still a matter of loyalty and disloyalty, although it becomes tainted with dishonesty and irresponsibility.
The Left and their regime are not us. There is no “we.” Furthermore, we are good and they are evil. As such, disloyalty toward the regime isn’t just permissible, it is required if we are to be loyal to our friends, family, nation, and God. The saying “rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” never rang truer — and being called a traitor has never been a higher compliment.
Notes
[1] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, vol. 2, p. 44.
[2] Thomas Steuben, “Red vs. Blue Patriotism,” originally from Counter-Currents.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Related
-
Pondering Pardons
-
What White Nationalists Want from the Trump Administration Part 3
-
Stranger Danger: Part 1
-
Conservatism Cannot Save Springfield, or White America
-
Left and Right: Twin Halves of the National Lobotomy
-
CrowdStrike and the Gigantic
-
Notes on Plato’s Gorgias, Part 14
-
Notes on Plato’s Gorgias, Part 13
5 comments
Thomas Steuben’s line, “Whenever a liberal waves an American flag instead of a Black Lives Matter or rainbow flag, it’s because they want something,” certainly matches my experience. I have heard them being sympathetic to and supportive of Islam while I never recall any of them expressing either admiration or affection for America. Obama’s refusal to wear a US flag lapel pin is emblematic.
I agree that the Civil Rights program has effectively displaced the Constitution, but I suggest it was earlier displaced (ironically, by multiple amendments) under and after the Lincoln years, where the pernicious Gettysburg idea was canonized, that America was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Despite the clear intention of the Founders, expressed in their 1790 naturalization act, that America was a White nation, the Constitution itself fatally failed to enshrine this definition.
Next time we need to be explicit.
Good article and a top-tier comment.
Yeah, I think the Republic was on borrowed time never having solved the slavery issue other than kicking the can down the road to 1808 and not incorporating something like the 14th Amendment (sans the rebellion and Confederate disfranchisment clause).
That last part took the lives of 600 thousand American soldiers and the military occupation of the South. I don’t think any delegates would have willingly ratified the Constitution in the first place if they had thought that four-score and some odd years later states voting to secede from the Union secession would have been deemed a treasonous act. (And no, this does not apply to Trump who has not been adjudicated of any J6 wrongdoing. )
Alexander Hamilton probably understood that the nation was already doomed when he leveled his pistol at the Vice President and was mortality wounded.
The Constitution was torpedoed with the 15th Amendment and the Rebellion clause of the 14th Amendment. It took until 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education, and then forced integration and the Freedom Riders and the Civil Rights legislation of the Kennedy and Johnson eras.
I agree that the Constitution has been subverted, and no longer serves the (White) people for whom it was created.
I also agree with those like Columbia University Prof. Charles A. Beard, a Liberal Progressive historian who wanted to (in good Marxist fashion) take down the idea of the Founding Fathers as demigods (1913).
Yeah, the Founders had some economic motivations to go along with their idealism like everybody else. Beard was an authentic Liberal who opposed FDR’s warmongering, so we have to also give him that.
However, I don’t agree with some White Nationalists and Sedevacantists that the Constitution was a Judeo-Freemasonic plot from the start.
The American Constitutional Republic pretty much did what it was designed to do for the nation until the Civil War and Reconstruction when it had to be rebooted.
Political systems like this have a measure of gridlock baked into the cake as a feature, which makes them highly stable until they are not. Systemic problems, therefore, never seem to get solved without an epic catastrophe, which often leaves many other things even far worse.
🙂
Agreed. Your writing was exquisite. “Are we the son of Kronos, or the brother of Poseidon and Neptune?”
Brilliant.
First we must be the son of Kronos and commit patricide before he eats us. Then, we reign; the brother of Poseidon and Neptune.
“The Left and their regime are not us. There is no “we.” Furthermore, we are good and they are evil.”
I am sure this is going to win over the majority of high-agency centrist whites
I don’t consider the Free Masonry of Albert Pike a “Judeo-Freemasonic plot” even though many symbols and concepts have been preserved there of that origin none were dictated or forced on anybody. The Free Mason in my opinion would be the ‘Vertical’ aspect that is hidden in plain sight and not religious affiliated . It is part of the North American Dasein or Folk-Soul.
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.