Transcendental Titans

Revolt Against Modernity

Author: admin

How to Believe: Becoming The Men of Janus

Pagan, Alt Right

We are living in an age of dissolution. Every institution of government and society is in a state of seemingly terminal decline. At the individual level the notions of honour, personal responsibility, and self-sacrifice have largely vanished from public life. The cause of this malaise is not material inequality, but the collapse of faith. The credo of sterile rationalism has triumphed over the metaphysical vision of a divinely ordained world ruled by angels and Gods. For many, the transition from the esoteric world of faith and divine truth seeking to the clockwork universe of the rationalist is vindicated by our cornucopia of material wealth and the unparalleled ease of our lives. Yet is plain to see, for all our prosperity and plenty, the average person remains deeply unfulfilled. No matter the veracity of their nihilistic consumption and hedonistic hoarding, the experience of the modern world is ultimately a shallow and an empty one. Despite all its garish efforts to distract from it, modernity cannot hide the incompleteness it has created by the denial of faith.

It is in fact impossible for the acolytes of modernism to admit to the necessity of faith, because faith itself is incompatible with the primary tenant of today’s anti-faith: an unwavering commitment to total equality. To have a metaphysical belief, to be religious, is to accept that you must subordinate yourself to a higher being – to something outside of, and above, yourself. In doing so you create a cosmic hierarchy; and in following a strict set of moral tenants you exercise discrimination. The sinner thus becomes lesser than the righteous. God becomes greater than the individual. It is these two acts that make faith antithetical to modernity and make its practice a primary existential threat to the modern order. The atheist of today thus screams loudest that no metaphysical world is possible, because he has the most to lose if such an order did exist. He is at once fearful of the collapse of the modern world and its hedonistic pleasures, and simultaneously driven by pathological terror at the idea of being judged by the divine and being found utterly wanting.

It is fundamentally fear that accounts for the lack of true heroism in modernity – a fear of death. A long life is treated as an inherently good life, because the ardent deniers of faith must strenuously attempt to reassure themselves that is the truth. Today’s society seeks to cling to life at all costs. The citizen of today embraces infirmity and avoids danger because if existence itself is the only objective moral criteria, remaining alive is the only true metric of success. What kind of life you lead is irrelevant, only cold utilitarian survival matters. It is ironic that this mode of thought which values only survival has in fact precipitated the gravest danger to the West’s security it has ever faced. In abandoning faith, in retreating into a fear of the great unknown after death, the West has singularly failed to respond to the threat of militant Islam. It is not political correctness that has hamstrung our efforts to repel this new invasion, but our fundamental lack of faith. The burning zeal of a believer will always prevail over the fearful who believes only in living at any cost. The atheist is a slave; the believer is the master.

It can thus be seen both for our personal salvation and to save our way of life we must return to the path of faith. Yet we are the first generation largely to be born without any predetermined spiritual path. We have been totally severed from the great continuum of our native religions. We are thus the first generation presented with the task of choosing a faith for ourselves, rather than simply inheriting it from history as every other generation has. To many traditionalists the solution is simple – we must return to Christianity. In their view, if we all began attending our local church on a Sunday, faith would be restored, and Western civilization would flourish once more. Not only is this a ridiculously parsimonious answer to the complex question of how to regain our faith, it is also an incorrect answer. It does not address the primary reason most of us were driven away from Christianity in the first place: The Church itself. Five hundred years after Martin Luther’s tumultuous revolt against Church corruption and decadence, the selling of indulgences pales in comparison to the scale of hypocrisy, debauchery and outright treachery present in nearly all forms of modern Christianity.

Both spiritually and temporally Catholicism and Protestantism in their modern format are so nauseating it is almost impossible for this new generation of faith seekers to take them in any way seriously. The Catholic Church – once the bejewelled repository of European faith – is now reduced to a shadow of its former self, more associated in the popular imagination with paedophilia than spirituality; and headed by a Pontiff who is more concerned with kissing refugee’s feet than engineering a resurgence of the European spirit. Protestantism fares no better. European national churches which have always been wedded to the zeitgeist of the state have simply joined modernity’s war on faith. In their Evangelical and American form, the Protestant faith is reduced to little more than an activity group, a superficial faithstyle choice which has no serious capacity for esoteric knowledge and searching for divine truths. The nouveau branches of Christianity such as Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses seem almost as alien to the European spirit as Islam itself.

It is undeniable that the political influence of the Church has been harnessed in almost every occasion against the traditionalist world view – whether supporting mass migration or lending its support to regimes beyond our shores. The reason for this is that at the heart of modern Christianity, the doctrine of universalism has been placed on a pedestal above all other values; and universalism is in actuality simply a euphemism for the total equality of atheism. It is for this reason that flocking back to our local Church will neither enlighten us nor shield us from the ravages of modernity – it will merely grant legitimacy to another tainted, destructive force and add voices to the deafening chorus demanding more equality, more nothingness. Faced with the seeming irredeemable nature of modern Christianity, an increasing number of spiritual nomads have decided to take their quest to an earlier, more primordial form of faith. Perhaps we do not need the return of God, but the return of Gods.

The neo-Pagan revival which is underway in many parts of Europe is fuelled by a wholesale rejection of Christianity as a proto-modernist credo which usurped the true faith of Europe. Certainly, Paganism has many attributes which lends it to be seriously considered as a possible solution to our modern predicament. In an era which is increasingly barbaric, the revival of the Gods of war, strength, and honour seems a welcome and necessary step. The inherent fluidity of divinity in Paganism – the notion that Gods walk amongst us, and that we ourselves may attain a modicum of divine power provides the mechanism by which Paganism can turn life itself into a heroic adventure. Just as in Wagner’s epic Ring Cycle it was Siegfried who was the embodiment of divine heroism, by reconnecting with the Pagan Gods of the past we too can transform our lives into an epic saga as we seek self-mastery and to both revere and chafe against the divine hierarchy.

Thus, by accepting Wotan into our hearts, while the average person drowns helplessly in the slime of modern life, we soar above them as we are carried on the wings of Valkyries. Paganism is an antidote to the timid veneration of luxury and safety which has replaced faith in modern life. A man who believes he will cross the Rainbow Bridge to join his Gods and comrades in the vaunted halls of Valhalla is not paralyzed by the fear of death and therefore is not acquiescent in trading his freedom and integrity for a few more years of the easy life. While the huddled masses view the impending clash of Western and Islamic civilization as a disaster, the pagan relishes it as a chance to attain honour and glory – the pagan revolt is truly a total inversion of modern values which enjoins the strength of the Gods with a personal quest for self-betterment.

Yet while this appeal to heroic individualism may captivate some – more serious-minded faith seekers have their reservations. It is certainly true that Paganism creates a hierarchy and reignites the metaphysical, but it at times can seem a narrow, limited faith system which has little space for the monastic intellectual, esoteric, and spiritual truth seeking which Christianity once provided. To return to Paganism would naturally entail the regression of certain aspects of civilised life we have come to enjoy for centuries, and its kinetic nature is seemingly incompatible with fixed stability. It may prove, at best, to be a temporary solution to our crisis of faith. After all, Paganism was washed away once by Christianity, and it is perhaps possible that a reformed Christianity could provide an even greater dynamo for our spiritual revolution. It is true that almost anyone that enters the great cathedrals of Europe can still hear the faint whispers of God.

The very success of Christianity has always been its ability to be reinterpreted and reformed. It has provided the impetus and driving force for Western civilization because its schisms, its doctrinal disputes, its interminable and blood drenched civil wars have kept Western civilization vital and have driven it onwards to ever greater heights of aesthetic and doctrinal beauty. When Luther launched his withering attack on Catholicism, it responded not by timidity and acquiesce – but by launching the greatest programme of artistic and intellectual prowess the world had ever seen: The Counter Reformation. Just because almost all Christian churches of today are weak-willed and unfit custodians of the faith, it does not mean the faith itself is the problem. On the contrary, Christianity can also provide a framework for man to ascend the golden path and leap from the gutters of modern life.

The most useful example of this is to take seriously the notion of St. Peter and his eternal watch over the Gates of Heaven. It is pertinent to always ask yourself the question, could I justify myself to Him right now if I died? If the answer is no, then it is time to revolt against the materialistic considerations of this life, and prepare instead a life worthy not of the judgement of your self-absorbed peers, but one which holds up to Divine scrutiny. It is this test of St. Peter which so terrifies the nihilists and atheists of modernity, who in the dark recesses of their mind know that if they are wrong, if their conduct in life was ever set against any objective test of morality, they would fail. This vision of St. Peter’s judgement becomes all the more powerful when we view Christ not as the meek, hapless Shepherd he has been portrayed as by the modern Church, but as Christ the destroyer of evil, vanquisher of the moneylenders, Christ the morally inflexible, crucified and whipped because he would not renounce his views or his mission. Once we view Christianity as an armour of faith which lends its power to our cause, we reconnect with the muscular Christianity that inspired the Templars, turned back the Ottoman’s at the gates of Vienna, and can now traverse the chasm of lost confidence we need to restore Western civilization. Once we accept our task as being able to look St. Peter in the eye and say with total honesty that we fought for the good, then we are no longer simply the agreeable Anglican or mildly contrarian Catholic. We have moved our frame of reference from the worldly to the divine – we have become Knights of Christ.

A case then has been made for both Western Christianity and Paganism being the true faith which can revitalise both the individual spirit and Western civilization itself. Yet the question which preoccupies many of a traditionalist persuasion, is how do I choose – Paganism or Christianity? In a world of inherited religions, this question would have never arisen. Yet in our modern situation it can become a serious philosophical stumbling block. And this is without speaking at all of other alternatives – of Eastern Orthodoxy, of a Nietzschean transcendental quest for self-betterment, or of the elevation of nation or nature to the place of God. Thus, how can one choose between one faith or another? By what criteria can we decide?

That is fundamentally the wrong question. We must understand that we live in an aspiritual age – that we have been conditioned from birth to reject faith in all its forms. We are in the position of the barbarians of the dark ages who slowly came to understand the ruins they were huddled in were not made by God, but by men. We are at the very beginning of the process of relearning what faith is, of understanding what the world of religious sites we have inherited mean. We must at this stage merely examine, and attempt to understand the religious heritage of Western man. We must straddle the dualistic, even contradictory nature of our faith. We must become Men of Janus who understand that Western man was both the Roman, and the Gaul. He was both the Viking, and the Templar. The Men of Janus understand that in the quest to save themselves and Western civilization, the final reckoning will be decided by how many faithful stand against the indifferent. By exploring faith, by studying religions, by re-learning spirituality we will come to know what appeals to us, which god speaks to us, and in the end – how we can escape the spiritual wasteland we find ourselves in and finally free ourselves from our fear of death and what awaits us.

Ringing the Bells of Liberty

Censorship, Google

J. C. Leyendecker The Liberty Bell, 1935

Since its inception the internet has always been a guarantor of human freedom. It is the lone unmolested, unmediated and free channel in which the endless flow of ideas and associations can take place. It is undoubtedly the greatest technological and intellectual achievement of modern times. Yet it is modernity itself that now imperils the internet and the freedom it offers. Almost daily new reports surface of websites and videos blinking silently out of existence after having been deemed hateful, offensive or dangerous by the machine minded masters of Silicon Valley. These new robber barons who did not create the internet but merely inherited it, have been brazen with their boasts about how they plan to subvert liberty. For the first time, the very apparatus of the internet has been pressganged into the service of censoring it; silencing dissenting voices and terrorising those who dare to resist.

The tools at the disposal of the new oligarchs of the internet are manifold. Through PayPal they have monopolised financial transactions and are able to destroy the livelihoods of those who publicly dissent in an instant. Through the nigh-on monopoly of Facebook, YouTube and Google they are developing weaponized algorithms to bury and conceal content that contradicts their version of the truth. And most insidiously, through their collectively applied pressure on web hosts they are seeking to deny access to the internet completely to alternative views; snuffing out opposition before it even exists. Some may be tempted to speculate that their motivations are financial – yet this is not the case. Creating an apparatus of censorship and banning potential customers is not a wealth generating exercise. Their efforts are not inspired by avarice, but by their ideological commitment to suppressing the march of traditional, patriotic and heroic thought.

Those in charge of Silicon Valley today are in mind and spirit thoroughly creatures of modernity. In just over a decade they have transformed the endless expanse of open and unregulated cyberspace into their own controlled and carefully policed fiefdom. They have no use for diversity of opinion; their overriding impulse is centralisation, uniformity and obedience. It is their desire to make their ideational hegemony so complete that the very possibility of an alternative to their totalitarian conception of the internet and of life itself seems inconceivable. Having acquired their power by parasitic and dubious means, they understand the necessity of stifling the spread of thoughts which might awaken the spirit of heroic revolution. They know that if society returned to a morally responsible state, it would not tolerate their rootless, self-serving, hedonistic and destructive agenda. We are thus not simply a threat to their money – we are a threat to their entire warped way of life.

The battle lines have now been drawn for the fight for the soul of the internet. The puppeteers of the mega corporations seek to turn the internet into nothing more than a trivial tool to manufacture passivity and consent in which no one will ever be challenged by an original idea or a controversial thought. We however, seek to remain true to the founding principle of the internet by using it as a free space for the intellectual and spiritual development of mankind. In doing so, we are marshalling a movement for the renewal of the flame of Western civilization. The battle for free speech on the internet is not peripheral to human liberty, but is in reality the most important fight of our time. The internet is the final freely accessible channel which has not fallen victim to domination by the forces of repression, manipulation and mendacity. If we lose this last frequency, we will once again be alone and atomised, unable to mount a coherent resistance to the monolith of modernity as it consumes the last vestiges of traditional life.

Ultimately however, we will not lose. The weight of the shackles that now seek to constrain collective thought has become crushing, and grows heavier each day. The burden of the enforced veneration of faux-equality and the coerced acceptance of the destruction of history has become too much for any reasonable person to bear. The system that the ignoble ideologues of Silicon Valley seek to prop up is morally bankrupt. It is undeniable that globalism and multiculturalism has not made us freer, and they cannot rectify this fact by attacking freedom even more viciously. They may have usurped control of the internet’s technological means, but they cannot program away the overriding yearning for human freedom. Every site they wish to redact speaks to this primal human impulse and reaffirms that our autocratic elites have created an inverted and unnatural world which ceases to exist once you stop believing in it. All that is necessary to see the truth of our philosophy is to come into contact with it, which is why the digital dictators are so strenuously attempting to stop that happening.

The fact is that their actions are already too late. They have launched this unprecedented campaign of repression precisely because a revolution in thought is already happening. Their inept and shameless attempts to curtail the desire for freedom with technological means will not succeed; and in ramping up their push to imprison the human faculty for thought they have alerted many others to the danger of their plans. They have tried to bar our access to the bell tower, but they were too slow. There are too many brave patriots now Ringing the Bells of Liberty, and those who hear the clarion call of freedom will never allow those bells to be silenced by our enemies.

General Lee Rides Again!

Unite The Right, Cville

All across America a great iconoclasm is happening. What started with murmurs of disapproval and the banishing of suspect symbols has become an out and out torrent of inchoate rage against collective memory. In towns and cities across the South, Confederate monuments that have stood in their silent watch for a century or more are being dismantled and removed in the dead of night by cowardly municipal councils hoping to appease the howling mob. Frustrated with the slow pace of bureaucratic vandalism, the same mob has taken it on itself to engage in vigilante vandalism to destroy these icons in broad daylight instead – literally trampling and spitting on the past with self-congratulatory abandon.  This attack on history is not new. It is simply the culmination of a process which has been on-going in Hollywood and in print for years; the psychological destruction of history has now manifested itself in the physical realm. Yet their actions which aim to show their strength, in reality show their weakness. Though they may be able to operate with seeming impunity, the factor which above all motivates them is fear. They are frightened of history itself, and its power to potentially awaken the spirit of resistance.

It is unsurprising they should accelerate their campaign to destroy history in the era of Brexit and Trump. These electoral earthquakes exposed the precariousness of their ideological hegemony and showed indisputably a hardening resistance to their agenda. But far from backing down in the face of the turning tide, they have sought to speed up their plans to sever nations from their roots by erasing the great continuous procession of the past. In their efforts to convert all to their nihilistic, relativistic and hedonistic ideology tearing down the heroes of history is essential, because the great heroes of the past through their actions prove there are objective standards to live up to. They prove that an individual can transcend circumstance, conquer adversity, and above all – resist the prevailing currents of thought. General Lee is an infuriating figure for the left, because although sullied by the supposed moral infirmity of his cause, The Marble Man who carried out his duty to the end with impeccable conduct in the face of overwhelming odds still captures the imagination of many.

They believe that by removing his likeness and attempting to erase him from history, they will extinguish his ability to awaken the will to resist in those who are seeking idols in an age of villains. It is important that they do this now, because more and more people are surveying the vulgar, vapid and morally sick nature of modernity and becoming restless and disillusioned. More and more people are realising we have chosen the wrong path, and to choose a different route we must return to where we came from – we must look back to our ancestors. In the minds of the fearful, they must stamp out the dim embers of a coherent collective mythology now, once and for all, to complete their plans for a rootless, international and meaningless world. A world in which they can guiltlessly aspire to nothing, because no man ever was better than another. A world in which no one is subjected to judgement, because they fear if they ever were, they would be found wanting.

For all their hollow espousal of tolerance, it is inconceivable to them to believe that the Confederate memorials represent in actuality the pinnacle of tolerance. They are the embodiment of a respectful reconciliation between old enemies, a graceful nod to the notion that people can fight and die on opposite sides, but in the end, come together as one to build a collective future. A nation that has the capacity to build memorials to those who disagreed violently with its fundamental ideals without rancour surely is a nation replete with tolerance. If they believe that by destroying these signifiers they can make the past simply go away, they are wrong. For every statue they topple, for every set of bones they disturb (literally in the case of Nathan Bedford Forrest), for every memorial that is melted down, they stoke the fires of resistance. By their conspicuous and reckless actions, they expose the true fundamental political and philosophical dichotomy of our time – it is not right or left, but builders and destroyers. Those who wish to preserve and grow, and those who wish to venerate random destruction and waste. They have made a catastrophic miscalculation – the history of the West is too bejewelled, too powerful, and too large to be swept away by a few fearful and jealous pygmies.

It is telling that the statue that was toppled in Durham North Carolina was not a memorial to a great general, but a humble tribute to commemorate all the nameless hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers who died, not for a belief in some odious economic system or grand ideology, but simply because they were inspired by a deep-seated desire to preserve their locality, their order, their way of life. In the moment that the monument simply known locally as ‘Old Joe’ was cast to the ground and set upon by a frothing mob, it was retroactively vindicated. The great mass of Confederate soldiers was roused to take up arms against their own nation exactly because they feared one day, this would happen; that the nation itself would fall into the hands of the ignorant, the fearful and foolish who sought to erase it. The vandals may have succeeded in destroying a statue, but in doing so they released the ghosts dormant within.

The boiling indignation of any true patriot at the lawless and reckless destruction of our heritage instantly created thousands more supporters of the cause of traditionalism. We may still be outnumbered, but we have something that our enemies will never have. While they live their lives wracked by self-doubt, fearful and riven by existential crisis in the meaningless world they have created, we march with thousands of years of glorious history on our side. Our path may be difficult, but every step we travel we are cheered on by the multitude of those who fought and died to make our world possible. While the destroyer can only feel strength in the mob, every one of our actions is guided by the wisdom and strength of those who came before us. When we march together, we march not only as friends and comrades standing against the tide of destruction and decay, but we march in lockstep with the tenacious columns of those Confederate soldiers who gave their lives in a heroic act of collective defiance. They may pull down Robert E. Lee, but they will not pull down Western civilization. His likeness may have vanished from many parks across the country, but that is only because – General Lee rides again!

The Ice Man Cometh

Russian Hacking, Trump

“Slavs in their Original Homeland”, Alphonse Mucha

The Trump administration is a government under siege. Despite securing the greatest electoral upset of recent history and overcoming the slings and arrows of recounts, legal challenges and violent mass protest, it is an administration haunted by an omnipresent and malevolent spectre. While accusations of misogyny and racism failed to derail the President, the dogged claims of nefarious Russian influence and collusion have managed to inspire a near psychosis in Republicans and Democrats alike. This however, is nothing new. Talking tough on Russia has been a staple of Western governments; fabricating the Russian bogeyman a seemingly essential element in liberal national unity and a fundamental plank of contemporary foreign policy. Yet there is more to this Russophobia, this total distrust of the East, than simple political expedience. Globalists and liberals have identified Russia and the East as a grave existential threat to their grip on power, one that must be stopped at all costs. Thus, the question must be asked, what are they so afraid of?

On the surface, the answer to this seems obvious. Russia is an illiberal, bellicose and calculating semi-rogue state which has designs on reoccupying its near neighbours and establishing itself as the new world hegemon. As a perennial enemy of the West, its mere existence entails the remote but ever present threat of nuclear Armageddon. Its calculating eternal despot is always looking to exploit our weakness and provoke us, as evidenced by Russian naval manoeuvres and its military’s endless exercises. In this narrative of the liberal institutionalist, we live in a world where a neo-Hunnic horde could sweep over the steppes and descend upon us at any time. Yet for an ideology which declares itself steadfastly against xenophobia, Orientalism, and paternalism these are shockingly primitive appraisals of the world’s second power. And if these assumptions were confined merely to Russia, they would be egregious but at least could be masked in the superficial garb of national interest. But even a cursory glance at contemporary politics reveals that it is not the Russian state the liberals fear, but the re-awakening of the Slavic spirit.

It is amid this atmosphere that the European Union has become increasingly dismayed by the activity of its Eastern members. Viktor Orban’s steadfast Hungarian resistance to the vast refugee columns that swept over Europe in 2016, including a sustained campaign of barrier building not unlike the plans of President Trump, are a long running source of chagrin to the institution. But he is by no means alone in earning their paternalistic ire – the positions of the Czech, Slovakian and Polish governments have all come under fire for a myriad of sins including prioritising Christian refugees, refusing benefit payments, taking only a paltry number of refugees, and harsh treatments of refugees upon arrival – refugees to Latvia and Lithuania were so disillusioned they reportedly abandoned the countries altogether after only a brief stay. A perhaps even more significant departure from the party line came in the wake of the attack on the Berlin Christmas Market. While Germany and the EU were busily trying to bury the horrifying news in their usual platitudes of living with terrorism and how relatively safe we all are, the Polish people exploded in indignation at the loss of one of their sons, Lukasz Urban, the lorry driver who was killed and whose vehicle was used to perpetrate the attack. The Polish people immediately sought to engineer his elevation to national hero status, with hundreds attending his funeral including the President as well as calls for him to posthumously receive the Order of Merit.

This attachment to even a ‘mere’ lorry driver may at first seem simple opportunistic populism; but it is indicative of a central tenent of the Eastern spirit, namely: tribal thinking. Identifying with fellow Christians, attempting to resist the forced transplanting of outsiders, and considering even the poorest in the ethnic community worthy of defending are all not merely incidental acts of government, but products of the Eastern mindset. It is the same mindset that inspires Russia not to view itself bounded by state lines, but to consider wherever Russians dwell to be Russia. This is a queasy prospect for Western policy makers who have done their best to detach states from any notion of being made up of the citizens; and instead view the state as first and foremost a bureaucratic and managerial entity which draws its power from above, not below.

The growing revolt in the East has also highlighted a fundamentally flawed assumption at the heart of liberalism: liberalism sees all peoples as ultimately interchangeable, and while liberal policy makers knew that Eastern Europe was still rife with the regressive attachments to kin, country and religion, they believed that a change in economic circumstance would precipitate a change of worldview. Quite simply, they thought they could remake their societies with cold hard cash. This is borne out by the ruthlessly pragmatic architects of neoliberalism in Russia, who in unleashing the ‘shock therapy’ transition from the Soviet economy to free markets affected a national demographic crisis as so severe it plunged the nation into negative population growth as thousands died in the squalor of poverty and alcoholism; all while the crown jewel assets of Russia’s previously stated owned economy were seized at rock bottom prices by predatory capitalists.  What should have followed this ignominious episode if liberal doctrine was correct was a reintegration of Russia into the world system and a flourishing of pluralistic democratic society. Instead from the tumult emerged a fiercely nationalistic uncompromising leader who immediately set about undoing this catastrophic external meddling.

Undeterred by this abject failure, liberal policy makers tried the exact same policy again, this time on the newly freed states of Eastern Europe. The cause of their failure, they reasoned, was not the particularities of the Eastern spirit – but rather the underestimation of the amount capital required to reprogram a people. So when the waves of Eastern European states acceded to the European Union, the liberal elites enacted their dogma with renewed vigour, this time eager not to make the same mistake as they did in Russia, and thus they were generous with the terms of loans, amount of foreign investment and development packages granted to the fledgling members. However, the result of such policies once again was dire demographic strife as well as this time draining the local populations of the most productive members who freely sought to chase wealth, fleeing their native countries en masse. Despite these depredations, the globalists thought they had succeeded this time. The Eastern European states with their desire to free themselves from Russian influence eagerly committed to fiscal and military integration.

Yet all this overlooked one other vital aspect of the Eastern psyche – the martial spirit. Though charged with dark plots for world domination, it has twice been the Russians who have stopped the march of globalism bent on creating a global order by force of arms; first defeating Napoleon on the frozen steppes of Borodino and second demolishing the ambitions of the thousand year Reich in the rubble of Stalingrad. Russia has demonstrated itself to be not the eternal enemy of the West, but rather the avowed enemy of globalism. When it once again felt the tightening noose of an encroaching foreign ideology it acted swiftly and uncompromisingly to stop its advance and also demonstrate the impotence of the ideology, firstly with its war in Georgia and secondly its annexation of the Crimea in Ukraine. Herein lies liberalism’s most fevered fears about Russia, in these two incidents it proved many of the most sacred assumptions of liberalism to be untrue. The will to fight was ultimately proven to trump economics and institutionalism, and in its projection of force to secure its native enclaves in Abkhazia and the Crimea, Russia utilized military power masterfully in stark contrast to the costly and ultimately futile liberal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

This embarrassment was compounded even further, when the West had to call upon Russia’s help to extricate itself from the colossal disaster it had created in the Middle East. It was Russia who decisively scuppered Western plans to deploy ground troops to Syria, thus averting yet another crisis. In exerting such power over international politics Russia unravelled yet another attempt at a hegemonic unipolar world order; and in the same instance had proven why monolithic bureaucratic group think was so dangerous. The indefatigable Russian spirit had burst from the permafrost of the Soviet Union, undone the efforts to sabotage and subjugate it by neoliberal zealots, and now was ready to strike a blow at the true enemy of Western and Eastern Civilization – radical Islam. It is no coincidence that ISIS began to suffer serious military reversals once the West finally allowed itself to co-operate with Russia, who pursued the group with its characteristic pitiless ferocity; demonstrated most starkly by reports of a young Spetsnaz officer who called an airstrike on his own position to eliminate nearby ISIS fighters. Utilizing the brutal and hard learned lessons of Chechnya, the Russians began to deal deep wounds to ISIS, a feat which the West had singularly failed to achieve.

At the same time, the tribally thinking states of the East began to realise that the European Union and global institutionalism was not delivering the utopia it had promised. The aid money had long since dried up; the rush of migrants made demands on economies and peoples who have little to give; and most damningly, the wave of terrorism that swept Europe in 2016 proved that the European Union and NATO had not only failed to protect its nascent external allies in Georgia and Ukraine, but could not even protect its own citizens. Thus while some Eastern European states have remained faithful to the new order, others began to have serious reservations. While they had wanted to settle old scores with Russia and sought to better their economic lot, they did not wish to abnegate their right to exist as many Western European states seemed intent on doing. To the inheritors of the legacy of John III Sobieski and his famed winged hussars who played such a pivotal role in saving Europe at the Gates of Vienna in 1683, swapping Russian terror for Islamic terror has come to seem a less than appealing deal.

It can thus be seen that, while temporarily dampened, the Slavic spirit is awakening in Eastern Europe, defying the will of the increasingly authoritarian will of their new Union. At the same time, Russia is confounding liberal ideological assumptions as well as consistently frustrating liberal foreign policy aims. It is for these reasons that the mere insinuation of Russian involvement sends liberals into such fits of terror and explosive rage. In their hearts, they know that Russian involvement has precious little to do with either Trump’s election, or with his wish for more cordial relations with the state. It is not the machinations of Russian intelligence services or Russian money that has swayed his mind, but current events that may have imbued him with a dose of sympathy to Eastern values. It is this fear that drives liberal outrage, unable to process that it is their  failing narrative and their own mismanagement, not conspiratorial plots that have undone them. What they fear is not simply a presidency open to the underlying assumptions of the Eastern spirit, but the wholesale collapse of their ideological project. What they fear, whether in the defiance in Eastern Europe or in the foreign policy victories of Russia, is that The Ice Man Cometh, and when he arrives, he will sweep away the meek, exhausted and ultimately calamitous ideas of the global elite.

Generation Nomad: Travellers Without Destination

Identitarian, Alt Right

Bridal Journey, Adolph Tidemand

The youth of today are quite possibly the most decried and despised generation in history. Millennials are regarded as a selfish, entitled generation who believe in neither country, nor God. Despite being the supposedly most educated, wealthy and free human beings to have ever lived, they are also some of the unhappiest and most chronically ill – both physically and mentally. While some attribute this unhappiness to rampant materialism, this claim is misguided. This is a generation that may have easy access to a cornucopia of consumer goods – but one that also willingly accepts tens of thousands in debt for their education; and remains steadfastly unfazed at the prospect of never owning their own home. If the goal of this generation is not wealth, duty, or faith – what is it? On the surface some may be inclined to say that there simply isn’t one – that rampant hedonism and active nihilism have become the modus operandi of today’s youth. Yet there seems in this dissolute cohort to be one unquestioned good remaining; one universally accepted truth. Travel is good. The credo of this age is summarised succinctly by the vacuous phrase: “I would rather have a passport full of stamps, than a house full of things.”

On the surface, though trite, this assertion may not seem altogether a bad one. Wanderlust has always been a part of the human spirit; the innumerable explorers of the past are testament to that. Even the indulgent holidays and vacations of today featured in history for those who could afford them, exemplified by the genteel grand tours of the English aristocracy. To a generation raised on the notion of cultural relativism, literally expanding your horizons by meeting and learning from other cultures is an undisputed positive. And equally, to a mass of rootless existentialists who believe literally this world is all that there is, it makes sense that exploring as much of it as possible should be the primary goal. Yet elevating travel in and of itself to the goal of life – to becoming an entire raison d’être – is a dangerous and ultimately unfulfilling path.

It is somewhat perplexing that travel has become the pathological obsession of the younger generation at this point in time because the prospect of modern travel could scarcely be less appealing or rewarding. This is the first generation that has grown up with perfect knowledge of the earth; with the ability to in an instant conjure nearly any image from around the globe. Every region of earth, no matter how remote, has become a hive of human activity, and has not escaped digital documentation. Every traveller of today thus travels with the knowledge they are simply trekking well-worn and safe paths. And at the same time, the ardent belief in internationalism, in cultural relativism and equality has meant that not only the destinations are tired and cliché, but the cultures upon arrival are more similar than ever. Ironically, in their restless pursuit of an escape from their own roots, the new travelling generation has remade the world in its own image – an entire world of fast food chains, coffee shops, recognisable landmarks, sanitized locations, and interchangeable populaces all adherent to the same view.

What is increasingly apparent is that this generation did not adopt travel as its mode of living by choice, but rather was forced to adopt it by circumstance. They have deluded themselves into believing they are travelling for the purpose of discovery and enlightenment, but in reality, they are not exploring but fleeing. They are fleeing from the rootless and incoherent nature of their own societies. The harsh truth is modernity has made refugees of us all. This fact becomes apparent when one observes that one of the primary destinations venerated by the new nomadic generation is Japan. Japan is omnipresent in the mind of the millennial –  from anime to cosplay to the pop culture image of the Samurai and the ninja – Japan holds a sacred place in the pantheon of travel and youth culture. But the idiosyncratic nature of Japan is predicated exactly on its resistance to travel – on a long history of wariness of outsiders.  The Japanese culture remains vibrant and unique precisely because, even in the face of demographic disaster, it has steadfastly refused to succumb to the itinerant world and accept migrants, refugees, and settlers. While the Japanese may travel, they also understand that a traveller must in the end, also have a home to return to.

The millennial obsession with Japanese culture is not simply a trivial desire to experience a culture and place different to their own; but symptomatic of a deeper pining for a coherent history, society and religion. The nomadic youth of today travel in distance and physical space because they have been robbed of the ability to travel back in time or upward towards a higher plane of existence. They are victims of a conscious effort to erase their collective history; to make them illiterate in the language of their own built environments. It is therefore natural that they should prefer to roam and carelessly disregard and overlook the local which they can no longer understand. While the world may be an open book to the generation of today, their own history is kept under lock and key, a forbidden knowledge guarded by the dual gatekeepers of revisionist political correctness and forceful cultural relativism. Forget your ancestors for they were not any greater than anyone else’s; nor were they great at all is the refrain of this mode of thinking.

This is the exact reverse of the circumstances the great explorers of the past set out under. Captain Cook, Christopher Columbus, and Charles Darwin all took to the sea with an unwavering understanding of who they were, and with the firm belief that their voyages were not simply exercises in moving through space, but were anchored in greater historical processes of science, philosophy and nation. It was the impetus of such people to go forth and create civilization, not simply to travel around and gormlessly spectate it. Even the decadent participants of the Grand Tour partook in it with the higher purpose of observing the civilization and beauty of the enlightened Mediterranean and bringing it home. And further to this, all these adventurers and explorers of the past did so while accepting the dangers and discomforts travel of the age entailed. Travel today is unfulfilling because it is easy – it entails no heroic battles with the elements, the limits of technology, or the unknown and the unexpected.

It is no coincidence that the generation of self-declared supreme travellers have no stomach for the true test of the age, namely space exploration. Despite the theoretical means being in abundance, no popular movement has arisen calling for mankind to traverse the stars – this kind of travel would require personal commitments and mass co-operation beyond the capabilities of the self-interested atomised traveller of modernity. It is this timidity in the face of the higher calling of the age that exposes the superficial nature of people who self-identify as living to travel. Their goal is not exploration and discovery in any real sense, but rather a self-indulgent feel good procrastination around a safe and already charted globe.

The vapid gypsies of modernity will gain no solace from their travels however. Even in the very limited goal of making the individual happy, modern travel singularly fails to deliver. Just like wealth, travel is a goal without end and with diminishing returns. The more of the globe viewed, the more an individual will be inclined to ask about their own place within it; the more of a spectator rather than a participant they will feel. It is not that travel is inherently morally bad or degrading, but simply that it is not expansive and fulfilling enough to fill the void of a true transcendental purpose. Purpose and destination are not fixed geographical points on the map to be discovered, but rather come from within. It is self-discovery rather than searching the globe that will bring about true fulfilment. It is high time that this generation reconnected with the philosophical currents of the past and began to ponder the meaning of Destination, rather than seeking new destinations in vain. It is time once again to become – Travellers with Destination.

Europa Wept Blood

Alt Right, Berlin Attacks

The Parting, Eskil Winge

2016 will go down as a year of tumult and astounding political upheaval; a year remembered for an unprecedented electoral rebellion on both sides of the Atlantic. The turmoil these shock decisions wrought has dominated the thinking of both the global elite and the masses; creating a daily political saga. Yet amid this atmosphere of jubilation, consternation, and the cautious optimism of new possibilities another 2016 unfolded. In the 13 months from November 2015 to December 2016, over 250 Europeans were killed in terrorist attacks; with hundreds more injured and traumatised. As the Western world was convulsed by political strife, it paid scant and fleeting attention to the savage campaign of bombings, shootings and vehicular slaughter that unfolded in its heartland.  The total death toll for Britain’s decade long involvement in the Iraq War was 179 combat troops dead. In a single year, Europe suffered more civilian casualties – often killed in crueller and more shocking ways – and scarcely more than a sheepish and insincere note of grievance has arisen from the political class. Why has this sustained attack gone unanswered?

It is certainly not that case we don’t have the means to prevent these attacks. We live in some of the most heavily surveilled and policed societies ever to exist. The technological and legal means at the disposal of governments to track the individual are now greater than ever. To the freedom lover, this is a very worrying prospect. It is indisputably the case that governments have cried wolf on the issue of terrorism many times before in an effort to grab freedoms; not just in our own time but throughout history. The threat of terror both prior to and in the medium term aftermath of 9/11 was played up relentlessly. It was the PATRIOT Act (as well as comparable European laws such as the British 2001 Security Act) which allowed nationalistic sentiment to be usurped for neo-conservative foreign policy aims. And therefore perhaps it is simply that this display of transparent manipulation awoke a generation of citizens who are alert to government attempts to steal liberties, and determined to frustrate the use of anti-terror powers.

However, a cursory glance at the use of counter-terrorism powers proves that this is not the case.  Under the doctrine of militant democracy, the German government infiltrated the far right NPD party and ensured the majority of its higher echelons were state agents. In the United Kingdom, fringe ultranationalist movements such as National Action have been banned under terrorism powers; and the state has consistently attempted to gather more surveillance power through legislation such as the Snooper’s Charter. Spain and France ruthlessly prosecuted their war against the separatist terrorist group ETA, and ultimately prevailed in the struggle. So if the state has proved far from shy in exerting its legal and technological muscle to stop militant nationalists, why has it been so impotent against this wave of Islamic terror?

The answer is that the problem of Islamic terror in Europe is not a question of means, but of political will. And the political will to fight against this concerted attack has been undermined not by governments, but by an insidious and ubiquitous political philosophy: the cult of relativism. It is under this credo that when we view the blood soaked cobbles of grand European squares, we can be assured that terrorism in relative terms is much less of a danger than smoking or driving. It is this Job’s comforter pseudo-philosophy that permits the timid and apathetic to view the carnage and proudly declare that terrorism, year on year, has decreased. It is this sizable minority of vocal collaborators who have allowed London Mayor Sadiq Kahn and French Prime Minister Manuel Vallas to nonchalantly declare that we must live with terrorism; that being bombed and crushed is an acceptable price to pay for modernity.

And many relativists are not simply acquiescing in the terror sweeping across Europe; they are welcoming it. To them – our years of marauding in the Middle East, the burning husks of Basra, Baghdad, Kabul and Aleppo justify these retaliations on our soil. We do not simply suffer these attacks, but we deserve them. In their eyes we are all guilty and therefore warrant this secular biblical punishment for our foreign policy sins. In the view of a relativist human life is shorn from all context; and the lives of people who we can neither know nor ever ensure the security of are just as important as our own. When confronted with these views it is clear that Europe has not been set aflame by the conflagration of Islamic terrorism, but is instead rapidly drowning in a sea of subjectivism.

It is now up to true patriots to forge our own salvation. The relativists’ prescriptions of inaction and self-flagellation will not save us. While even if it is true that the amount of terror fluctuates, the goals of today’s terrorists are fundamentally different to that of the past. The IRA, ETA, even the Red Army Faction and Al Qaeda had aims linked to territorial ambition, foreign policy, and governmental changes. The foot soldiers of ISIS’ Jihad have terror as both a means and end in itself, and seek to destabilise and overthrow our entire civilization, powered by a metaphysical zeal.  While the relativist will continue to argue terror is atypical and remote, current events will pile many more bodies on its ideational altar.

In turn governments will continue to ignore these bodies as politically inconvenient. It is now high time for the patriot to take up the mantle and view them as a righteous rallying cry, because if we fail to do so, we could share their fate. We cannot allow these atrocities to fade from the public imagination as the government and relativists eagerly hope they will. Our task is thus two fold, firstly to wrestle the narrative from the hands of the relativists who are driving us off an ideational cliff; and secondly to safeguard against malicious governments who wish to use this crisis to seize powers without preventing it. It is our duty to speak out firmly and loudly, and above the political din to forever remember the year that Europa wept blood.

The Long March of the Patriots

Brexit, Trump

Washington Crosses the Delaware, Emanuel Leutze, 1851

Britain’s accession to the European Economic Community in 1973 represented the culminating triumph of globalism and liberal institutionalism in the West. In the wake of the Second World War, nationalism had been deemed too dangerous to be left untamed; and the majority of its proponents were laying in shallow graves across Europe. History henceforth would simply be the process of ever increasing integration and global governance, of the vanishing nation state and the gradual creation of one world government. Each year seemed to reaffirm this assertion as the EU expanded its remit, the UN led international government by consensus, and each generation was raised with a strengthening belief in internationalism and a global way of thinking. It seemed after millennia of strife and failure, the conclusive best formula for organizing human life had been found – and all future politics was simply the process of its refinement.

There was however, one small problem. Despite the burgeoning of global prosperity, despite the unprecedented years of peace in Europe, there were the nay-sayers and reactionaries. The perennial pessimists who believed that this great global hubris would come before an even greater global fall. Yet in all great movements of human progress there are the sceptics and the sour people, and these vocal doubters were never estimated to be more than a passing minority. Their world view would gradually disappear from history just as those of the Luddites who were washed away with the inexorable tide of progress. Election after election simply reaffirmed the minority status of this view, and states moved towards finally silencing these views forever by a dual approach: legal and demographic.

To safe guard this nascent new world order from its reactionary critics, an increasingly intricate web of hate speech laws and quasi-governmental bodies dedicated to monitoring and enforcement were created. This system proved to be more successful than its architects could have imagined, with states rarely needing to directly enforce the new rules of the game, as enthusiastic supporters of the globalist agenda acted as vigilante guardians keeping the forces of nationalism from ever being able to articulate themselves or organize effectively. In any case, this system only had to preserve itself in the short term – the longer term plan meant that those who advocated a return to the homogenous nation state would be silenced forever, as a globalised government demanded a globalised population and the unprecedented free movement of people would make sure that national characters would be irreversibly altered forever. Quite simply, the nationalists would have no nation to return to, even if they were in a position to attempt it.

With the threat of a reactionary revolt supressed, the new order now set its sights on expanding itself truly to global proportions. Despite its professed global reach, up until now it had mostly taken true root in the West, and large portions of the globe still remained beyond its reach in backward nationalistic and theocratic strife. To cement its primacy and to prove once and for all that it was the correct form of political and social organization, liberal institutionalism set its sights on transforming the intractably war torn Middle East into a model of tolerance and prosperity. On paper, this seemed an easy task – the rudimentary military forces of Afghanistan and Iraq were swiftly overwhelmed and the process of populace embracing the ideals of outward looking internationalism would surely follow thereafter. The downtrodden, oppressed, and impoverished citizens of the Middle East were now free. But it had come at a cost.

The ferocity and barbarity of the extreme violence both during the invasion and in the following occupation had disillusioned moderate supporters of liberal institutionalism who had been promised it was a panacea to end war. This was exacerbated by the astronomical costs of this undertaking, which was in turn compounded by the return of volatile economics which proved global economic interdependence could be a danger as well as boon; and for the first time brought into question the dictum that liberal institution would bring ever increasing prosperity. On top of this, the distraction of attempting to expand the cause of globalism to the wider world had allowed the reactionaries to gain power at home, emboldened by the growing array of weaknesses that this failed expansion had shown.

The biggest catastrophe for globalism however was not squandered blood and treasure, but its loss of its monopoly on internationalism. In toppling the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, the globalists broke the dam of the balance of power, inflaming a Pan-Arabic internationalist revolt that quickly swept over the arbitrary bounds of borders and engulfed the entire region in rebellion and at the same time created an alternative global power structure. This simultaneously drew the globalists into a clash of ideologies that they were ill-prepared for, and presented them with the grim realisation that if they were to adhere to their principles of free movement, they would now need to accommodate the millions of displaced and impoverished refugees they had just created.

Worse still, something completely unexpected had happened in the liberal institutionalist heartland. Not only had the Arabs combined in an international effort, but so too had the reactionary forces of Europe. Previously it had been easy for the global order to squash nationalistic sentiment in one state or another when it reared its head, because of its necessarily geographically delimited focus. This meant globalism could simply bring all its resources to bear and crush nationalist movements in a whack a mole, ad hoc fashion.  The reactionary forces had learned bitter lessons from this – each instance of repression and failure had instilled in them an ever more collective consciousness that the problems facing an unemployed Ohio steelworker were the same as an out of work former dock worker from Sunderland. Inconceivably, the nationalists had internationalised.

The supposedly one true iteration of international thought was now besieged by two alternative conceptions of global life; and it was still embroiled in economic crisis, facing a refugee tidal wave, and rocked by the increasing incidence of shocking terrorist attacks. In response to this disastrous situation and loss of authority, it was time for liberal institutionalism to once again reassert itself by going straight to its most troubled heartland – Britain – and proving once and for all that it was the only game in town. Britain had been the slowest to embrace the international revolution having not directly suffered the total ruin of the Second World War, and had remained a bastion of reactionary doubt about the whole project. Yet once again, on paper, a referendum on remaining in the EU, the gold standard of international institutions, should be an easy victory for the internationalists. They had the almost unanimous full backing of the British establishment, a recently re-elected internationalist leader, and decades of legally mandated internationalist thinking and mass migration.

But deep beneath the surface, trouble had been brewing. The rapid increases in absolute GDP growth had masked the reality of globalised life for many; as the unemployed and forgotten took stock of their gutted former industrial towns and took aim at the liberal institutionalism that had sacrificed them for ideological reasons. The horrifying attacks of Nice, Brussels and Paris had reminded the many that the nation, not the supra-national institution was the guarantor of security, and without being able to call on the national will to fight external threats, global institutions were impotent to combat the zealous adversaries they themselves had a hand in creating. And most crucially, the images of vast columns of refugees heading towards the European continent finally alerted many even moderate nationalists to the plan of the globalists who intended to internationalise the populace into being unable to mount a unified resistance. They came to realise that this may be the final chance to save the notion of a homogenous nation.

So as the globalists confidently sat down to watch what they had thought would be their show of power unfold, there was increasing consternation. This may be a closer run thing than they had expected. The reactionaries – the backward people, those on the wrong side of history, the small minded and the bigoted had flourished in their absence on foreign adventures. But as all previous elections and polling had suggested, these people may have become a larger minority, but were expected to remain minority nonetheless. Yet as the night unfolded – something unprecedented happened. Without centralised leadership, often independent of one another, a silent majority of voters firmly resolved to overthrow the order that had held sway in Europe for the last 43 years. The global elite watched with growing horror as the patriots who up until now had been nowhere, were suddenly everywhere. With wide eyed disbelief they witnessed the revenge of the forgotten, the disenfranchised, and the forward thinking as the nowhereville of inconsequential periphery villages and towns united in their millions to assert that localism is superior to globalism; that homogeneity is superior to diversity; and that democracy is superior to inaccessible technocracy.

Alt Right, MAGA

Revolution hangs in the balance

The consequences of this revolt were harsh and immediate. The globalist government of Britain was swept away, and the European heartland of liberal institutionalism was plunged into panicked disarray. Slowly the global elite began to come to terms with this national revolt and started to amass their usual powers of coercion against it. They brought their economic threats to bear, they tried to divide the populace, to convince them they hadn’t really meant what they had done. Above all, they tried to play for more time to finish their project completely. In previous decades these tactics may have succeeded – but the global elite realised too late the international nature of this revolt. As the race for the American presidency entered the final stage, they clamoured to try and derail the second prong of the revolt in the form of US Republican candidate Donald Trump. But it was too little, too late. The momentum which had been gathering had reached critical mass, and could not be undone.

The scale of the revolt soon became apparent. 78 million people had voted either for Trump or Brexit. When they had been given their chance, the denigrated patriots who had been subjected to the heavy artillery of mass media intimidation, economic threats and legal and social stigma came out in an unstoppable tidal wave. They came from wind swept Welsh valleys, from blighted Northern industrial centres, from sleepy middle English shires, and from rural American farming towns to unite as one and to say loudly and clearly that the current world order was a disaster for them. The long march of the patriots which had begun as uneasy opposition to the direction of global politics in 1973 had culminated in a peaceful electoral revolution in 2016 that is unprecedented in world history.

It is likely that the swarm of patriots who emerged from the hated backwaters of terra incognito have dealt a probable fatal blow to the status quo. In the minds of the remaining enthusiastic supporters of the globalist project, these reactionaries have undone peace and prosperity. Yet as has been shown, the over extension, mismanagement and arrogance of the globalists themselves were the key factors in fermenting and allowing this revolution to take place. What lies ahead is as much on their failure as it is on the success of the mainly moderate majority driven to revolt by their policies. But historians of the future will look back at this period and forever remember – the long march of the patriots.

Of Titans and Pygmies

Identiarian, Brexit

Georg Osterwald (German, 1803-1884), “The Father’s Grave”

Since the end of the Second World War Europe has operated on an unspoken consensus. The genie of nationalism that proved itself to be too dangerous for the world has been put back in its bottle, and in its place independent states have willingly relinquished their sovereignty and agency in exchange for security and stability. The distinct character of European nations now lies dormant under a permafrost; content to allow themselves to be governed by mediocracy and bureaucracy as long as economic progress is maintained and citizens can sleep safely at night. To a naïve multitude this formula seems to have banished strife and war from the European continent forever. They are wrong.

What the short sighted have failed to realise is that Europe may have muzzled itself, but the rest of the world has not. While Europe slept the globe has been engulfed in a tumultuous nightmare – and we are now being drawn into its wake. As tens of thousands of the destitute and the war ravaged struggle to our shores, the continent looks on horrified. As gunmen rampage through the former splendour of Paris again and again, the globalists try and assure themselves these incidents are simply a one off, a blip. As politicians desperately try and rewrite the unspoken consensus to tell us that Europeans are interchangeable economic units with all other peoples of the world, a fundamental split has occurred in the European psyche. The old politics of left and right has been swept away, and has been replaced by two competing schools of personality – the titan and the pygmy.

The political pygmy looks upon the chaos engulfing Europe and responds by flocking to bolster the status quo; to present every reason for inaction as noble, and to demonise every effort to regain control as destructive and regressive. To the pygmy, the world before our new consensus was a barren and dangerous one riven with risk and conflict. It was a world where nation states lived and died by the ingenuity and character of their leaders and citizens, where responsibility couldn’t be willed away to the faceless collective of the unelected technocrats. It was an era that demanded personal involvement and responsibility, where the entire nation bore the consequences of their actions. To the pygmy a return to this world is simply unthinkable. In their minds the surrender of fundamental freedoms is a small price to pay for the transient gains here in the now – they couch their arguments in terms of economic growth, barriers to hedonistic travel, and uncertainty in the short term.

The ultimate driving force of the political pygmy is self-doubt.  Using obfuscation and relativism they seek to convince Europeans that Europe isn’t worth fighting for. They point out that European systems were never fully democratic, that we still may be ruled by politicians and bureaucrats that we despise, that we are too few and too divided to navigate this world alone. Yet what really underpins all these complaints is a fear within their advocates that a return of Europe would make personal demands upon them; that it would interrupt their leisure and their pursuit of wealth. The political pygmy doesn’t believe European states could survive alone because they themselves fear they couldn’t survive in the harsh realities of the world outside Europe’s tranquillity and prosperity. It is thus with horror that the pygmies look upon the newly vocal champions of European freedom and ask the question, why would anyone choose hardship over luxury?

The titan understands there never was a choice. It is not the economic, migrant and terror crises that are the anomaly – Europe of the last seventy years is. Europe believes that it fundamentally re-wrote human nature to do away with risk and competition; but the world outside continued on as it always has. The enthusiastic believers in more Europe are wilfully blind to the fact European governance cannot legislate away terror attacks; it cannot stem the flood of refugees by parcelling them out to all the far flung corners of Europe. These policies are appeasement, and appeasement has always failed. The titan isn’t swayed by arguments of transient losses in economics or minor inconveniences at the borders, because they understand that eternal principles are at stake – freedom and survival.

By redefining Europeans as merely economic units, both the freedom and survival of Europe have been put in peril. Europe at once demands that it loses its old national character by declaring that Syrians and Eritreans are as European as everyone else; yet it naively hopes that these groups will lose their own national characteristics. Its response to the increasingly frequent terrorist attacks has been to simply view them as an inevitable teething process, a new phenomenon like extreme weather; a simple case of bad luck. The pygmies gleefully participate in this wilful inaction because they believe it will allow them to continue their European dream of unfettered pursuit of wealth and personal pleasure unhindered; if some have to be sacrificed on the altar to allow the continuation of that dream, so be it. To the pygmies, the certainty of Europe’s decline is preferable to the uncertainty of national self-determination.

To the titan such a response is suicide. Every successful terrorist attack only signals to the world that Europe is a soft target; every boat full of accepted migrants begets five more. The reassertion of national identity and a return to old European values is already well underway. Every foot of Hungarian steel fencing, every Austrian vote for Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer, every determined outer in the British EU referendum represents a reawakening of the European titans. It is true that we will return an uncertain and dangerous world after the collapse of the European project; but it is better to live and die by our national wits than to shackle ourselves to the seductive slow and easy death of false union.  While Europe has slept, the world around us has not. It is now time to wake up to this fact and ask yourself what you will be in this new European struggle – titan or pygmy?

Transcendental Titans: The Identitarian Credo

Death

To the uninitiated, to be an identitarian in this age seems to be an anachronistic and borderline masochistic endeavour.  Every day presents more evidence that the notion of having a fixed historical identity is a dying one. From the removal of the Confederate flag from civic centres across the South, to the throngs of migrants crossing European borders only to be welcomed with open arms; it is plain to see group identity as we know it is disappearing. This change is not merely a consequence of shifting political priorities, but signals a much deeper change in the philosophical zeitgeist of the West. The unprecedented political upheaval we see today has been made possible because all fixed identities have been rejected by an increasingly individualistic and fluid society. In the mind of nouveau-man, fixed identities such as race, gender, nationality and religion are baggage to be cast out and to be replaced with the blank slate of individual preference. In such a philosophical climate, it is no surprise identarianism is regarded by outsiders as a both futile and unnecessary doctrine.  Who really needs the burden of identity anymore? This essay seeks to argue that the answer to that is, we all do – and we need it now more than ever.

Before any defence of the credo of identitarianism can be attempted however, the idea itself must be defined. That is no easy task considering the multitude of definitions and reinterpretations of the concept offered in recent years, so I will instead offer my own vision of what identitarianism means. At its most basic level, identitarianism is the belief that an individual belongs to a fixed historical tradition. Their loyalty is not to a political party or even a state – but to the ethno-cultural group which they were born into and with which they self-identify. The primary driving force of an identitarian is not transient political and economic change; they do not seek to amend tax laws or reduce carbon emissions. Their central objective is to defend, continue, and tirelessly better the group of which they are a part.  The identitarian steeps himself in the cultural morays of his group; he treasures the historical inheritance he is the custodian of and takes it as his duty to enrich and transmit that inheritance to future generations. To some, that definition may seem perilously close to conservatism. Yet to conflate these two ideologies is a grave mistake.

The conservative seeks to turn back the clock – to constantly hark back to an age when things were better and the people were much wiser. But to the modern conservative who those people were and which ideas are worth conserving has become a confused issue. They have slipped into the fallacy of believing ideas exist independently of the groups which created them, and this misjudgement has led to their political irrelevance. We have watched modern conservatism fight, and lose, a series of culture wars on drug control, immigration restrictions and gay marriage. The reason they have lost these battles is because shorn of its true objective – conserving a way of life and strengthening the identity of the ethnic group that devised these views, these arguments simply appear to be rules without reasons. If modern conservatives cannot answer who they are conserving, and why they are worth conserving, their world view becomes moribund. Their ideas simply become one set of values amongst many subjective value sets.

What modern conservatism lacks is a transcendental purpose; an aim over and above making minor political changes in the here and now. While conservatism retreats from addressing the true issues of today to expound on tax laws and state rights; idenitarianism takes up the mantle of seeking a higher purpose. It is this transcendental element which differentiates identitarinism from all other political ideologies today. We do not derive our worldview from the whims of changing moral and ethical fashions, but from continually asking ourselves the question: does this decision strengthen and improve our group, or does it weaken it? We understand, unlike the conservatives, that technology and society move on, and we cannot live in a moral museum. But at the same time, the considerations of what may be fashionable in modernity can never come over and above staying true to our identity – and to the thousands of years of development that have gone into its formation.

Many commentators make the criticism that identitarianism is simply an attempt to co-opt the achievements of the past and present them as your own. That merely belonging to a group identity by accident of birth does not entitle you to a sense of superiority, and that in a liberal individualistic world it is personal achievement, who you are, not what you are that counts. In their view to present yourself as superior because of what others have done is lazy; and to limit yourself only to your own group is an arbitrary and needless restriction. These two criticisms are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the identitarian credo.

Identitarianism is not an ideology for the feckless or the weak minded. The achievements of the past should not be taken for granted as a positive reflection of your character; but as an aspiration to emulate those who have lived meaningful lives. We venerate the members of our own group not simply because they just so happened to be members of it, but because their personal acts of physical and mental fortitude make them worthy of praise and remembrance. Identitarians feel a constant sense of duty and expectation; an urge to live up to those figures of the past and to ensure a future for those to come.  Identitarians of all people know that it is both who you are as well as what you are that counts – because we are grounded in a history that respects great figures of the past rather than those who seek to cast the past aside and start from zero.

As for those who say identitarianism is a restrictive ideology – they are right. It is one of the few ideologies which exists today that makes demands on the conduct of your day-to-day life. Other ideologies try to explain away personal failure and political shortcomings as stemming from the all-powerful state, the apathy of society or the structure of the economy. We do not have a Marxist sense of the historic inevitability of our own success; we cannot be complacent and sit on our hands waiting for the day of the spontaneous revolution. We have an acute understanding that our very reason for existence is under attack, and if we fail it is our own fault. The identitarian response to personal adversity and political setbacks is not to blame others, but to draw on our own psycho-spiritual reserves to try and better ourselves. To harness a Nietzschean will to self-evolution and self-improvement. To look up to the esteemed figures of the past, and to seek to learn from them by responding to hardship with personal heroism, in all circumstances.

This makes identitarianism a personally demanding ideology, and one not suited to mass movements and the multitude. It can be a hard and lonely road, and one which will not win you respect amongst your peers; nor make you personally wealthy. But what is moral and right is never easy, and the successes of our movement are always more rewarding because of this. We are not trying to achieve small-scale political change, which will be washed away in a few years or decades. We are trying to re-awaken the spirit of collective identity and champion a whole revolution in the thought of contemporary man.  This means we may not have the instant gratification of immediate political breakthroughs and the superficial successes of electoral victories. Our mission is a deeper, more fundamental one.

Speaking to people on this level, on this higher plane, is an ultimately more worthwhile cause however. Following the path of identitarianism, hard though it is, makes life meaningful. When we reach out to people and furnish them with an understanding of who they are, and what they should aspire to be, we free them from the destructive psychic prison of modern liberalism. Contemporary society tells them that by denying who they are, and by attempting to appease and intermingle with other groups they will eventually lead a richer, more fulfilling life. But that is the greatest lie of our age. Because no matter how hard they deny themselves, no matter how many Confederate flags they rip down or apologies for past colonial indiscretions they make, they can never truly become a clean slate.  They cannot and will not be absolved from their history; other groups will simply make more and more extreme demands for public signs of acquiescence and self-denial.

The treadmill of political correctness and self-policing becomes ever faster and faster, more and more rules of playing nice must be internalised, and yet it will never end. Because the truth is – group existence is resistance. While our identity is still undiluted enough to serve as a rallying cry to free and uncowed individuals, it will always be a threat to the liberal and multicultural elites. By accepting who we are, and being proud of it, we free ourselves of the crushing weight of the contrived expectations of others. The ever increasing demands of forcing disparate and incompatible groups together ceases to be our problem; and the productive work of moving towards a healthy, homogenous and upwardly thinking society can begin.

The truth of the matter is that multi-ethnic societies always make the individual less free; because policing such an unnatural arrangement always requires a monolithic apparatus to suppress inter-group hostilities and tensions. By embracing our own group identity, we opt-out of all the bureaucracy and implicit force needed to make living with other groups tolerable. We do away with anti-hate speech laws, politically motivated governmental organizations, media witch-hunts about offhand comments and Soviet style censorship of creative expression. We can instead create a society free of these personally burdening and unproductive endeavours and work instead to become better, happier and freer individuals.

Neither liberalism nor socialism has the power to achieve this new, freer and healthier society because both have become impotent in the face of modern political arrangements. When liberalism is applied to a society of many groups, its calls for freedom will always be subordinated to maintaining unity in a state of many faiths and group identities. It can only fight for the freedom of the trivial – the false gains of minor personal freedoms in the face of slavery to the omnipresent state intent on keeping people together. The freedom to make more money, to take part in more previously taboo activities, and to live more comfortable lives in the short term is a pursuit that lacks all meaning if the individual is not free to be who they are.

Equally, Marxism has already triumphed in a cultural sense while conceding its economic doctrines are incompatible with modernity. This renders it only able to demand more of what already exists – to constantly cry for more ‘equality’, which in reality only presents itself as more privileges for favoured out-group identities at the expense of true group identity. It means an ever increasing array of laws, more restrictions on what can and what cannot be said, and no improvement in the overall condition of the average individual. Marxism fails to understand that the problems we face today are not material ones; even the poorest in advanced society have access to a cornucopia of material things. The problems we face today are philosophical and spiritual, and an ideology that has no grasp of life in these terms can only demand more of the same. Marxism, the supposedly most revolutionary of ideologies – has become status quoist. It has lost its revolutionary zeal, and works only for the interest of groups which are not our own. It is not simply that identitarianism is the better option for overcoming our present depredations; it is the only option. And whether you are an identitarian or not, group identity is certainly not dead in the contemporary world. Other groups are rapidly discovering its power.

The rise of militant Islam and its many political and military manifestations has brought sharply into focus that a self-aware group, harnessing its identity as a rallying cry is a powerful and dangerous thing. Modern liberalism is losing on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq, and if we fail to develop our own sense of group identity and self-preservation, it will soon be losing at home in our European and American heartlands. What modern ideologies, shorn from the moorings of the groups that created them have failed to realise is, abstract political values will always be defeated by tangible groups operating under arms. Nations and states are built on the collective will of the people who inhabit them, not vague political notions. If you change the composition of the inhabiting group, you will swiftly change the values that prevail in the land. As much as our political elites try and deny it, groups with an unshakable sense of who they are, and why they are fighting, will always defeat those held together only by the tenuous bond of an artificial and hollow idea.

We stand now at a crossroads. The mass exodus of refugees caused by the advance of militant Islam has more starkly than ever demonstrated the ideational gulf between identitarianism and the old ideologies. In response to a worsening crisis, the old ideologies have intensified their self-denial and public self-flagellation.  Not content with breaking the social contract by the continued policy of mass migration of disparate peoples into formerly homogenous societies without a democratic mandate; they now seek to literally invite strangers directly into their households and communities under the guise of re-homing refugees. The reasoning for this is not a moral one, but a political one. They believe the faster group identities are diluted, the sooner they will fade as a factor in political life. But this response is a deeply misguided one. The importation of other groups will not foster the identityless carte blanche society they dream of; it will simply mean their own group and cultural values are more rapidly and violently supplanted by that of another.

The identitarian response to this present disaster is not to weaken ourselves, but to seize this opportunity to reassert ourselves more firmly than ever. Resolving this crisis is not a question of economic and organizational resources; but a question of political will. Before we can solve any external crisis, we must first solve our internal problems – the problems of who we are. Though the idea of group identity has been much undermined in the past fifty years, this is not solely because the notion of doing away with identity has resonated with people on a philosophical level. It is also because, once decided upon this course, the old ideologies had to enforce their decision by controlling the unwilling and uncertain elements of the population through social stigma and economic threats. But the power of present political elites is imagined, not real, and it is up to the identitarian to prove that the psychic prison has no guards. By speaking out, unintimidated by the prospect of social and economic reprisals, we will give others the courage to do so, and together we will soon see how few the true supporters of the current system number.

Once we have re-established our sense of identity, the solutions to our current problems will become apparent. A community with a clear cut sense of self-preservation will have no difficulty in finding the necessary economic and organizational resources to deal with the rise of militant Islam, the refugee crisis, or any other challenge that may face it. It is high time now to stop believing a policy of appeasement, of self denial, and subordination to the status quo will save us or make us freer and happier. The identitarian credo is one which precipitates personal hardship and sacrifice. It offers no certain prospect of victory or easy successes. But we are motivated to speak out because what we have to say is too important to be left unsaid; our truth goes beyond economic and social fashions. And perhaps, if enough of us join together, the future generations will say that when almost all were abandoning who they were, and retreating from fighting for a truly progressive future, there were a brave few. A brave few who saw civilization was teetering atop a narrow bridge, and squared their shoulders to make sure it did not fall; despite the slings and arrows of personal attacks and economic depredations they had to face. This brave few will be remembered not as the characterless middle managers of today’s politics; but as an intellectual vanguard that sought to reawaken the people and lead them back to a freer, greater and happier society. These brave few will be remembered as – the transcendental titans.