One of the biggest mysteries that plagues the world of neoconservatism is the question of why the end of history – that final triumph of liberal democracy and consumer capitalism – hasn’t occurred yet. All around the world in many different cultures and nations there is a strenuous reaction against these very things. Indeed, even in the western core – Western Europe and the Anglosphere – there is increasing skepticism about these tenets of the Enlightenment.
The question which the neoconservatives ask is, “Why do they hate us?” This question increasingly applies to pretty much everybody all over the world, but most especially to the Muslim world. Instead of seeing Fukuyama’s end of history, we’re seeing Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilisations. It seems to many of the neocons that the Muslim world is simply being obstinately ungrateful in refusing to recognize the blessings of democracy, secularism, and hedonism being imposed upon them by the force of Western military might.
Now, far be it from me to defend Islam itself or to defend the terroristic tactics which Muslims use. Certainly, I find Islam to be a false religion and Muslims to be primitive barbarians for the most part. However, my attitude toward them tends to be one of desiring to neither invade them nor invite them. I’m perfectly happy to let them do what they want in their own lands and to run their own countries as they see fit, so long as their barbarism is not imported into our Western countries.
If there was anything that you would think would be immutable, it would be the past. Short of inventing a time machine, it should be impossible to change any event that has already occurred. However, this assumption is actually quite incorrect. While the events of objective history themselves cannot be changed, our understanding of them can. Indeed, revising history is easy when you control the levers of education and popular culture. Then, it’s just a matter of telling the history that you want to be told while ignoring the history that actually happened.
A case in point would be the movie slated to hit the theaters tomorrow called Hidden Figures. If the hype surrounding this movie is to be believed, it will tell the “true” story of the American space program that put a man on the moon. The movie is a loose biography of Katherine Johnson, a black woman who played a role in the space program. The hype surrounding the movie, of course, portrays her as the single central figure in that program without whom nothing would have been accomplished. All those white guys with slide rules and crew cuts? They could have done nothing without her.
Now to be clear, there really was a black woman named Katherine Johnson who was involved with the space program – that much is true. It is also true that she was an accomplished mathematician and that she was involved in checking the calculations that were involved with the orbital mechanics of putting a man on the moon. But it’s a long way from that to the sort of “black woman single-handedly put a man on the moon” recounting that the narrative hype seems to be portraying. At face value this movie would seem to be exactly the sort of historical revisionism that progressives love to utilize for the purpose of “resetting the narrative,” so to speak.
The West is the world’s sick man. I think that just about anyone with any knowledge of the current state of world affairs would recognise the truth of this statement. While still wielding a great, perhaps even preponderant, amount of military and economic power on paper, the Western nations have increasingly shown themselves to be riddled with feckless “leadership” and a blatant unwillingness to defend themselves against foreign subversion and the invasion of millions of hostile foreign nationals entering under the guise of “refugees” and “immigration.” The failure is not one of capability, but of will. The West is a patient lying on his sickbed who refuses to take the medicine that will assuredly make him well. Instead, he continues to wrestle with his fever while blaming the doctors who prescribe for him his cure.
It’s obvious that the current state of affairs in the West cannot and will not continue for very long. Our societies are very far out of accord with nature, and our unnatural, high-energy transition state situation is going to tip over the edge and drop into a lower energy well of one sort or another. It has generally been one of the goals of Tradition and neoreaction to be ready for this “Great Reset” event (or series of events, more likely), and to become worthy, accept power when it presents itself, and then rule. Typically involved with this is the notion of a “restoration” of the West, a return to the things that made the West natural and good, while hopefully avoiding a repetition of the things that have brought us to our present point. The point to this post is to delve somewhat into what the nature of this restoration might look like, if indeed there is to be a restoration. But to do that, I’d first like to cover and analyse, in brief, some history of “the West” and use the previous “restorations” to draw some conclusions.
When we talk about “the West” or “Western civilisation,” these terms are usually used with varying degrees of precision depending on the speaker or writer. However, I think the most broad and generally understandable definition (which I will, as a result, use here) is that “the West” is a long, semi-continuous succession of civilisational “stages” that first became identifiable around the 6th century BC in Greece, and which continue to the present day. Each succeeding civilisation is like a storey in a building built upon the previous ones. These stages each contributed something to what we now call Western civilisation.
One of the great misconceptions that many people hold about the Middle Ages in Europe is that they were a time uniformly devoted to royalism and monarchy. The typical picture is that of a king, attended by his retinue, waging war against other kings, each surrounded by servile knights willing to fight to the death for the honour and welfare of His Royal Majesty. Such a picture, however, presents a woefully inadequate image of the rich tapestry that was medieval government. Monarchy varied in its strength, and was sometimes even elective. Quite often, aristocrats were masters in their domain and waged wars with each other upon their own authority. Free cities abounded across the continent, many with decidedly un-monarchical governments.
More commonly than many realise, aristocratic republics of various types (designed so as to distinguish them from post-1789 “democratic republics” on the model of the French Revolution) existed at various points in medieval and early modern European history, at various places on the continent. While varying in their details and traditions, these republics generally shared one thing in common – stable administration provided by a process in which the best men in their polities were brought to the fore and included in sharing power within their oligarchic systems. These republics were not in any sense “democratic” as we now generally think of “republics” as being – they were neither communist shams like the “People’s Democratic Republic” of North Korea nor democratic shams like the United States of America and others around the world today. Within them the franchise – the exercise of political authority – was held by the leading men and was generally restricted to those who had either proven themselves in battle or through political wisdom or who were successful in the (sometimes quite literally) cutthroat world of medieval commerce.
However, when considering the histories of these medieval and renaissance republics, it is striking that their existence follows a definite pattern. Almost invariably, we find these republics existing among populations which fulfill two qualifications – high average national IQs and Germanic in culture and ethnicity. The medieval and early modern republics which we can identify consist of the following:
Great news from yesterday evening, as the British people (at least the English and Welsh ones) voted to secede from the Second Belgian Empire.
“British voters chose to ‘leave’ the European Union on Thursday, defying the polls — and President Barack Obama, who had urged Britain to ‘remain’ in the EU. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had also urged Britain to stay in the EU. Only Donald Trump had backed the campaign to leave.
“Republican strategists had panned Trump’s decision to travel to the UK in the midst of campaign turmoil, and in the wake of his blistering attack on Hillary Clinton earlier this week.
“Now, however, it looks like a risk that paid off handsomely, in the currency of foreign policy credibility.”
As you can imagine, there is an incredible amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth from all of the usual suspects – the globalists, the Muslim deep-cover jihadists, the cuckservatives, and the rest. Before I get to what I’d really like to talk about with this post (how the vote reflects centuries old patterns of division in the Anglo-Saxon world, and thus demonstrates the enduring legacy of culture), here are a few brief thoughts on the referendum:
The Euro-globalists managed to get one of their own
elected selected as the President of Austria,
“Alexander Van der Bellen – who appears to have defeated the Freedom Party’s Norbert Hofer by around just 30,000 of nearly five million votes – has a track record of opposing the nation state as a concept, and his own as a reality.
“In 2007, while he was leader of the Austrian Greens, the party published a picture of a dog with the Austrian flag in its mouth. The poster read: “Take your flag for your gag”, followed by the declaration that anyone who loves the country “must be sh*t”.
“The flag “joke” was a play on a campaign urging dog owners to place their dog’s excrement in bags and trash cans. The Austrian greens replaced the bag with a flag of Austria in the image (right).“
So close. Too bad Hofer didn’t get outside the margin of fraud (see it here in the original Austrian).
The globalist “elite” really needs to keep in mind that the “far right nationalists” that they’re dealing with right now are the ones who are still willing to try to work within the system. If they keep squashing all attempts by the people to protect their own nations, they’ll find out that the next step involves “far right nationalists” who don’t bother with the established processes any more.
Now is the time for the globalists to figure it out, get out of the way, and go into honourable retirement in Monaco with their vast fortunes more or less intact. That’s definitely a lot better than being thrown out a window or decorating a lamppost.
I recently found this article on a blog called Of Wolves and Men, about the three pillars of Western civilisation. Since like the author of that blog, Western civilisation and its discontents will probably form a large part of what I write about here, I thought it might be beneficial to add some of my own thoughts on this subject. The reader may click on the link provided above to read the original article in full. These three pillars are probably ones which most students of European history will be familiar with, or at least could guess what they were without much prompting. However, I’ll list them below as stated in the original article,
1:) The Greek and Roman Legacy
2:) Christianity; Specifically the Medieval Catholic Church
3:) The Customs of the Germanic Barbarians
Before I begin to address these in greater detail, I would first like to lay out my approach to organising my thoughts on this, one that derives (mostly unconsciously, until recently) from the view of civilisations as “organisms” (versus civilisations as “systems” which are more or less consciously created through planned efforts at organisation by groups of men, something which I don’t think a balanced study of the historical evolution of any society, even “startups” like the United States, really bears out). A civilisation is tri-partite. Like the biblical description of man himself, a civilisation has “spirit, soul, and body,” so to speak. Every civilisation has a spiritual component – what it thinks about life, death, God or the gods, the afterlife, etc. They also have “soul” – psyche, mind, the intellectual, philosophical, and cultural heritage that determines how their members think, act, and respond. Civilisations also have “body” – the people themselves, and the customs and rites that they bring with them.
Three posts in and already breaking my “rule” about news stories. But this one is worth the while. Apparently, Austrians wish for Austria to remain Austria.
“Austria’s government was licking its wounds after the anti-immigration far-right triumphed in presidential elections, dealing a major blow to a political establishment seen by voters as out of touch and ineffectual.
According to preliminary results, Norbert Hofer of the Freedom party came a clear first with 36% of the vote in the first round of elections for the largely, but not entirely, ceremonial post of head of state.
Candidates from the two ruling centrist parties, which have effectively run Austria since the end of the second world war, failed to even make it into a runoff on 22 May, coming fourth and fifth each with 11% of the vote.
The result means that for the first time since 1945, Austria will not have a president backed by either Chancellor Werner Faymann’s Social Democrats or their centre-right coalition partners, the People’s party.
Having a president in the Habsburg dynasty’s former palace in Vienna not from either of the two main parties could shake up the traditionally staid and consensus-driven world of Austrian politics.”
Though it is barely mentioned in the article itself, the reason for the rise of the Freedom Party is the “refugee” invasion that has swept Europe. With Europe being flooded by millions of hostile Islamic invaders, many Europeans are finally taking the red pill and waking up to the danger. Pray this continues. Better for them to do so now, when the solution is to deport and block from return than for them to do so in ten years when the situation is that much more desperate, and the only solution will involve bullets and bloody streets.
The rise of the Freedom Party in Austria mirrors the rise of other nationalist movements across the rest of Europe, as well as the surprising rise of Donald Trump in the USA. Sooner or later it will become obvious to even the most obtuse on both sides of the Atlantic that the “fringe” is actually the mainstream.
Once again, it looks like Austria, Poland, and Hungary will be in the vanguard of saving Western civilisation from the Turk.