Anyone who follows the national dialogue surrounding immigration issues in the USA, especially as it relates to illegal immigration, is sure to have encountered the so-called “biblical” arguments advanced by theological liberals for unlimited, unhindered immigration. One of the stock-in-trades of the pro-amnesty, anti-borders, pro-globalism side of the argument is to put some left-wing religious figure before a microphone and have them repeat out-of-context biblical citations, mostly drawn from the Pentateuch (which is generally the only portion of the Bible with which their Jewish handlers are familiar). These verses typically include,
“Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21)
“Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 23:9)
“And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34)
“And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.” (Leviticus 25:35)
“Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:19)
One must admit that it seems a bit odd to see theological leftists, who at no other time would believe what the Bible says or take its words at face value, suddenly morph into textual literalists on this one, specific issue.
A hallmark of modern Western devolution is surely its rejection of traditional modes of hierarchy and authority, and its embracing of egalitarianism. This has been an endemic element within modernism, one decried by critics as widely drawn as Baron Evola, Thomas Carlyle, and Nicolás Gómez Davila. The central tenet of each – and many other – appraisals of this element of the West’s direction in the past few centuries lies in the observation that hierarchy and authority are necessary components of a well-functioning, rational, and indeed natural society. Whether it’s Evola expostulating on the disappearance of polar axial kingship or Carlyle decrying the sham and simulacrum of insincere society, the common theme (and one well worth noting) is that the rush to egalitarianism represents regression, rather than progress, and this is so whether it takes place in the West or in any other society.
The principle of hierarchy has been around for as long as human civilisation has existed. This much must be understood right from the start if the reader is to have any kind of realistic understanding of human society. Even in the most “primitive” tribal systems, every group has a chief – a man to whom the tribe looked up to as the leader and authority, the one who led the hunts, the one whose mana energised the rituals and made the rains come. Even in more distributed authority systems, such as those tribes governed by councils of elders and the like the principle of authority, resting on wisdom that accompanies senectitude, was still present – no one in such circumstances would have thought to suggest that the youngest wet-behind-the-ears brave or the village women should participate in the decision-making for the group. Generally speaking, there have been very few aberrations from this state of affairs until modern times.
If your average Westerner was asked to state what best defined the modern world, there is a strong likelihood he or she would give an answer relating to individualism. This is because individualism is one of the defining characteristics of modernism as it has been expressed both in the West and in other eras where similar late stage degeneracies in societies have taken place. The role of the individual has been exalted to an excessive degree in the modern West such that there is basically no sense of community, united purpose, or public spiritedness in our countries any more.
Many on the “soft Left” of classical liberalism and libertarianism (for these cannot properly be called “conservative” or “Rightist”) would see absolutely no problem with this. These ideologies perpetuate, and indeed claim to thrive upon, the mythology of the “rugged individual” who pulls himself up by his own bootstraps through his own hard work and abilities. These are the folks who assume that anything which challenges this proposition in the least way must be “communist” or “collectivist.” They fail to grasp that civilisation itself is “collectivist” by this definition. No “rugged individualist” who has ever lived has succeeded outside of the framework of a community and society which allowed him to operate under the protections of various laws and/or customs that maintain order within their social system. This fact is as true for the West as it is for any other civilisation that has ever existed. The West is not – and never could be – special in that regard, despite the constant drumbeat about “American exceptionalism” and its European counterparts. Westerners are as subject to the laws of nature and human nature as anyone else.
Throughout the Western world, immigration (whether legal or illegal, and often approximating invasion more than true migration) is perhaps the single biggest issue facing both the people and the politicians. The Western world is finding itself facing an unprecedented mass influx of entrants from other, non-western parts of the world. While the history of the West has certainly involved mass movements of people at various times, these have always been understood to constitute either invasions or colonisations. The idea of millions of outsiders moving into a culture and it being considered “immigration” is a vastly new (and dangerous) concept in the West.
Nevertheless, there are many in our society who seem to be perfectly fine with the idea of mass immigration radically altering the cultural, religious, and genetic bases of Western societies. Indeed, the acceptability, or lack thereof, of mass immigration is one of the major points of division between so-called civic nationalists on one side and ethnonationalists (speaking generally) and especially white nationalists on the other. Civic nationalists, who are often really just straight up open borders supporters, believe that membership in a new society can be established as easily as simply taking an oath and signing some paperwork. “You can be a polygamist totem worshiper who believes albinos should be harvested for the magical elixirs in their livers and still be a good American,” and all that.
The common assumption, at least among the coastal élites, is that openness to immigration is correlated with democratic sensibilities in particular, drawing from a more generalised standard of egalitarianism. Because these élites rarely interact in any meaningful way with the immigrants who comprise the “mass” in mass immigration, they tend to assume the fungibility of the “lower classes.” This is why the political arm of the Cathedral sees immigrants as a source of political capital – one voter is as good as another, and if a new set of voters can be imported who will vote the way the Cathedral wants versus recalcitrant natives who insist upon voting for their own interests, then all the better. It wouldn’t be the first time in recent history that this has happened. The corporate arm of the Cathedral sees immigrants in much the same way – as replacement labourers for natives who are too expensive and have a fractious insistence upon earning a fair wage.
However, increasing democratisation and equality have not noticeably served to make either the masses or their “ethno-elites” more favourably disposed to mass immigration. Indeed, the opposite is widely occurring, as can be seen daily around us.
Anyone who has been following the recent cultural movement by SJWs and People of Colour™ to undermine the last vestiges of traditional Western civilisation in both Europe and in the Anglosphere has seen the attempt to discredit our remaining institutions by declaring them “white supremacist.” Building upon their efforts to use Charlottesville, Richard Spencer, and “Neo Nazis” as a foil, practically everything related to the history, institutions, traditions, religion, and heroic mythology in the USA and other Western nations has now been morally reprobated by our modern day Puritans on the radical Left. America’s police and criminal justice system is white supremacist since blacks and browns find themselves disproportionately caught up in its clutches. America’s educational system is white supremacist for not granting Harriet Tubman equal time with Thomas Jefferson. Christopher Columbus has been relegated to the status of mass murderer and genocidal Nazi for merely discovering the American continents. Figures and institutions in European nations are similarly condemned. Even such abstractions as logic and reason are openly ridiculed and condemned as white supremacist by anti-white PoCs spearheading the cultural marxist movement to destroy Western civilisation.
On many levels, one cannot blame the white nationalists for reacting as they do. When someone is – literally – trying to destroy your culture and civilisation and people, it is natural to want to fight back and to expel the intruders, especially when the intruders have a much greater tendency to be socially dyscivic criminals, rapists, welfare mooches, and general troublemakers.
As much as it pains me to agree in any way with the SJWs, however, they are correct in their bare assertions about the white supremacist nature of our institutions. It is in their reaction to this, in their efforts to undermine and overthrow these institutions, that they are grossly negligent and worthy of our condemnation. Allow me to explain what I mean.
For the past month, Americans have been treated to the spectacle of rampant iconoclasm occurring nationwide, the result of a concerted effort by progressives to undermine and erase America’s “racist” past. It began with the assaults on the South’s Confederate heritage. Statues of southern generals were targeted for removal, toppling, or complete demolition. Some more ambitious souls have even floated the idea of dynamiting the monument at Stone Mountain, in Georgia, an altogether more difficult proposition than merely pulling down a statue of Robert E. Lee.
As predicted, the iconoclasm did not remain confined to the destruction of Confederate history. The process has since moved on to encompass practically every visible and tangible aspect of American history. We have seen the vandalism of monuments to as widely diverse a group as the Founding Fathers, Union generals, former Philadelphia mayor Frank Rizzo, Christopher Columbus, St. Junipero Serra, and even (in an ironic twist) the Great Emancipator himself. Additionally, movements are afoot all across the country to rename schools and other public buildings which are named after anyone who was, essentially, a white male. This follows the recent academic trend of replacing Shakespeare and other historical giants in university curricula (as well as in literal monuments) with pygmyish “people of colour” who were much less capable, but much more ideologically acceptable to the radical Left.
Many observers have compared the recent iconoclasm to those of various Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS and the Taliban, who have made a habit out of destroying millennia-old cultural artifacts in the areas they control. Despite the obvious ideological incompatibilities between the two, this comparison does have merit on a deeper level. The existence of the “Red-Green” alliance between radical Muslims and radical progressives should not be as surprising as many might initially think. It is an alliance of convenience between two groups who are equally committed to the destruction of traditional Christian, white, Western civilisation and its replacement with something else.
“Prosperity” is one of those things which most people would say is a good thing. Nearly everyone wants “prosperity,” in whatever way they may define it. Yet, how to secure it is a question which creates quite a bit of division, and has indeed birthed many of the almost innumerable ideological conflicts that have plagued the modern world. I believe that much of this has to do with the failure on the part of modern man to adopt a rational definition of “prosperity.”
The typical Westerner today, and especially the American, would tend to define “prosperity” in solely economic terms. For them, prosperity is that which leads to economic growth and a greater abundance of superficial expressions of wealth such as access to entertainments or the possession of various status symbols. Prosperity would be measured in increasing GDP, more electronic baubles on the shelf at Best Buy, and an ever-rising stock market index.
However, there is a good argument that can be made that these are not really “prosperity,” in a reasonable and traditional sense of the word. The traditional sense of “prosperity” which has applied for most of human history (once again, we find modernism to be an aberration here, as it is in much else) can best be summed up in the Hebrew (shalowm) and Greek (eirēnē) terms, found in the Scriptures, which the ancients used. Both of these terms transcend the shallow and materialistic sense which modern Western man applies to “prosperity.” Rather, “prosperity” involved a deeper sense of spiritual, moral, and mental peace (indeed, “peace” is a common translation of both of those words). It portended an absence of conflict, not just in the bare sense of not fighting with someone else, but more broadly in leading a stable, well-grounded, balanced life that was suitable for your station in life. To the extent that it involved economics, it did so in the sense of communal abundance grounded in hard work and industry which allowed individuals within a community to lead lives secure from hunger or privation, rather than speculation in commodities or eternal pursuit of wealth and trinkets.
In this post I’d like to do something a little different than what I usually do with this blog. I’d like to talk about strategy, and how those on the alt-Right need to get much, much better at it. After seeing the debacle which occurred in Charlottesville this past Saturday, I think some sound advice may be desperately in order.
I’m sure that a lot of folks in the alt-Right, of whatever stripe, are feeling pretty black-pilled right at this moment. As well they should, because the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville was a disaster. There’s no way to get around that. Don’t take what I’m about to say in the post below as “punching right.” Rather, understand it as me giving some well-meaning, and I believe much needed, counsel.
What everyone who is interested in this needs to understand is that the reason the Unite the Right rally was a failure was because it completely neglected to take into account 4GW (Fourth-Generation Warfare) principles which can very easily be applied to civilian situations remaining at conflict levels below outright armed conflict. In fact the leadership at UTR and during the subsequent chain of events once the rally got started broke just about every rule of 4GW that could have been broken.
My advice for any serious alt-Righter of any stripe who wishes to avoid future debacles like UTR would be to first, first, FIRST read Victoria by William Lind, and then familiarize yourself with Lind’s other materials on this subject. If you haven’t done this yet, then stop what you’re doing, alt-Right involvement-wise. You’re only going to hurt, not help your cause.
However in the meantime until you can do this, I’ll provide a few pointers as overview.
It can safely be said that everyone in neoreaction and related circles laments the rise of modernism and the concurrent fall of traditionalism. Indeed, this is one of the primary reasons why reactionary movements in general even exist. However, what exactly is meant by “tradition”? When did this “tradition” exist? Was it Victorianism? What about the sort of traditional Catholicism found in the Middle Ages? What of 1st century Christianity? Ancient Rome? The Bronze Age steppes? Evolian esoteric history? What about outside of a Western context? Don’t other civilizational groups have their traditionalisms as well, and aren’t these just as valid forms of “tradition” as our own?
The answer to all of these questions is yes, each to varying degrees.
It is helpful to think of tradition from an energy state perspective. Thought of this way, we can recognize traditionalism as a low-energy state, one which is characterized by high levels of social stability and order, which are able to “sink” social energy, preventing it from overflowing into destructive channels. Conversely, modernism is correctly described as a high-energy state system demonstrating instability and perturbed order.
Thus, I believe a very useful conceptual model to use to visualize tradition versus modernism is to map them out onto an abstracted three-dimensional space in which the z-axis is social energy, while the x– and y-axes are arbitrarily chosen and represent a blended mixture of civilizational “variables” relating to specific aspects of culture, as well as fundamental, underlying traits which define and direct how that culture manifests itself. This 3D space will contain both valleys (low energy regions representing various types of traditional societies) and neighboring peaks (high energy regions representing various sorts of modernist transitional states between traditional schema. Movement between any two points in this space will necessarily entail a change in z-axis height, increases or decreases in social energy representing movement toward or away from local “tradition minima.”
Previously on this site, I’ve discussed the phenomenon of ethnogenesis, which is the process (or rather, processes) by which ethnic groups are formed. As a regular reader of the Times might have picked up, ethnicity and ethnogenesis are subjects which interest me greatly, and which I consequently think and read about a good deal. Recently, I’ve been reading the proceedings from a series of papers submitted to a colloquium organised by the Centre for Hellenic Studies at Harvard. These papers all deal with various aspects of ethnicity as it related to the archaic, classical, and Hellenistic Greeks. One of the issues that has most interested me is that of colonisation (of which the Greeks did quite a lot) and how separation from the metropolis and interaction with “barbarians” affected the ethnicity of the colonials, both as to how they view themselves and how they were viewed by other Greeks. It strikes me that we can look to certain of the situations in Greek colonialism and draw some conclusions about situations in more recent history, and even those occurring today.
Basically, the three types of situations are these: 1) When a people plant large and populous colonies into a relatively uncivilised location, or at least those in which the indigenous peoples are technologically backwards and unable to effectively resist; 2) when a people colonise an already well-populated region with inhabitants who have attained a high level of civilisation, but remain aloof, and 3) when a people colonise the same, but attempt an integration of the indigenous population.