Transcendental Titans

Revolt Against Modernity

Author: admin (page 1 of 2)

Hearts of Oak: The New Battle of Britain

Immigration, Britain

Next weekend is the 50th anniversary of Conservative MP Enoch Powell’s now infamous Rivers of Blood speech. In it, he predicted that uncontrolled mass migration would irreversibly change the nature of Britain for the worse. He foresaw that unlimited, unfettered transfers of population would so viciously erode the fabric of British society that the eventual outcome could only be civil war. In 1968, he was denounced by almost all sectors of the political establishment for his position and was relegated to the status of ‘a voice in the wilderness’, dying a politically isolated figure in 1998. Yet in his own defiant words, the wilderness was a good place to be, for echoes could be heard much more clearly there. And echoed through the ages he has. When large scale riots by Muslim youths took place in Bradford and Oldham in 2001, his warning rang in the ears of an increasingly fearful establishment. When the 7/7 Bombings rocked London in 2005, his spirit stirred again causing an increasingly dispossessed and shocked population to ask, was Enoch Powell right? In 2017, when 34 people were killed and hundreds injured in three separate terrorist incidents in London and Manchester – the refrain which was unsure at first began to build: Enoch Powell was right!

Yet despite all the frenzied activity of his ghost, Britain has blindly continued down its dark path. The political elite has recklessly, deliberately, and maliciously enacted a plan to destroy the Britain that Powell loved. The evidence of this is everywhere. It has become so transparent that it has even drawn international condemnation as a spate of foreign speakers who wished to question the direction of Britain have been denied entry. In a single week Austrian Generation Identity activist Martin Sellner, his American girlfriend and collaborator Brittany Pettibone, and fellow American Conservative Lauren Southern were all detained and deported from Britain for daring to question the political consensus. British citizens fared no better, as Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen of Britain First were jailed for alleged anti-Muslim hate crimes; and in a bizarre and utterly draconian move, comedian Mark Meechan who filmed his pet pug doing a Nazi salute and responding to Nazi slogans as a skit was convicted of ‘grossly offensive’ speech; a completely Orwellian concept incongruous with the spirit of British law.

This concentrated and centrally orchestrated attack on free speech took place while news was leaking out of another industrial scale Muslim grooming gang which had systematically abused white British teenage girls in Telford – repeating the pattern which has been seen in Rotherham, Oxford and numerous other British towns and cities. It is clear that the two issues are inextricably linked; that the increasing incompatibility of multicultural values with British values has forced the government to respond with tyranny in a vain attempt to maintain the coherence of the state. The harnessing of the legal apparatus of the state to repress the British population for the benefit of multiculturalism had already begun by the time Powell made his speech, and he attacked the Race Relations Act of 1965 – the first piece of legislation of its kind – exactly because he foresaw where that line of thinking would lead. In taking on the role of mediator between widely different and incompatible ethnic groups, the government has become a vindictive bully which has subjected British citizens to a tyranny of the minority.

What started with the Race Relations Act of 1965 has now metastasised into a monolithic and authoritarian machinery of control – The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, established in 2006, received over 60 million pounds of British taxpayer money per year to enforce remit which was completely antithetical to free speech, and designed to silence political opposition. In 2009 it demonstrated this blatantly when it launched legal proceedings against the British National Party (BNP) which had recently won 2 seats in the European election, citing the supposed illegality of its party constitution which specifically stated that only white Britons were eligible to join. The subsequent legal costs were largely responsible for the dissolution of the BNP, which had garnered nearly 1 million votes in the 2009 European Parliamentary elections. This is just one instance of the will of British people being frustrated, but it is striking evidence of the chiasmic gulf which has opened up between rulers and the ruled. The parallel and separate ethnic societies within the British state which Powell warned of, are now enshrined in law. There is one legal system for the British people, and another, more preferential system of laws for the newcomers.

Britain is now in a de facto state of anarcho-tyranny. While the British population are mercilessly policed, even for private conversations, for inconsequential jokes, for minor political dissidence, large swathes of the country are operating with little functional law at all. This was demonstrated quite accidentally and much to governmental chagrin by the 2017 Grenfell Fire. When a west London tower block caught ablaze due to a faulty kitchen appliance, 129 people were killed in the subsequent inferno – or so we are told. Accurate figures for the death toll were initially impossible to ascertain because illegal multiple occupancy, undocumented immigrants, and shadow citizens entirely outside the legal framework of the UK were largely the casualties. Amid the calls for beatification and martyrdom of the victims, the state was desperately trying to ascertain who the victims even were in the first place. As it investigated the occupants, it discovered many were claiming thousands in benefits or had no legal basis to be in Britain at all. Nevertheless, a train station is to be dedicated to the victims who have received millions in compensation– meanwhile the mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham has pointed out the promised compensation for the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing has not materialised. This duality in approaches to communities is not an isolated incident; it is endemic. It shows how fearful the British state is of offending favoured groups – and those favoured groups are growing ever larger.

Powell, who was so ridiculed in his time for suggesting that London and Wolverhampton would become one third non-British, has been grimly vindicated by the statistic that white Britons now constitute 44.8% of the capital’s total, down from nearly 60% just ten years earlier. This trend has been mirrored in cities across Britain with Slough, Luton, Leicester, all possessing non-British majorities. Powell’s own former seat in Wolverhampton South West, is now occupied by an Afro-Caribbean woman. As these parallel societies have developed, knife crime, honour killings, acid attacks and moped robberies have flourished in London, accompanied by widescale electoral fraud in boroughs such as Tower Hamlets. ‘Grooming gangs’ has become a revolting phrase which has had to make its way into the British vocabulary as a direct result of mass migration. The terrorists who ran over pedestrians and blew up children attending a pop concert in 2017 may have been ‘British’ in origin – that is, raised on British soil, but they were not part of any British society the formerly homogenous population would recognise. The state has ceded control of these minority-majority spaces to the new occupiers, and rather than fighting for the security of its citizens it has contented itself to harass those who point out the truth.

The contemptuous, short-sighted, self-serving and hateful elite that now rule Britain would have gotten away with these crimes had it not been for another intervention by the spirit of Powell – the successful vote by Britain to leave the European Union. Powell was an early pioneer of Euroscepticism, so vehement in his beliefs that he abandoned the Conservative Party to encourage Britons to vote for the Labour Party who were promising a referendum on the issue, which eventually took place in 1975. At that time, only one third of Britons wished to leave the EEC, the forerunner to the EU, because the ravages of that institution had not yet become apparent to the majority of people. They had been self-evident to Powell, who understood that outsourcing a nation’s sovereignty was placing the country at the mercy of foreign powers whose interests would eventually not align with that of Britain. When the European Union introduced refugee quotas in the wake of the 2015 Refugee Crisis, the malevolent nature of that institution had become readily apparent to most Britons who despite all intimidation and propaganda firmly rejected it. The government may have thwarted the idea of a party for Britons, but it had failed to extinguish the Britons themselves and to exorcise the ghost of Powell.

This begs the question, why was Powell right – and why is our government so wrong? Even now, May’s shambolic zombie government is attempting to pretend that Britons didn’t really want to leave. They are betraying the British people yet again, seeking to elongate and water down the process of Brexit, to foment a pointless and highly dangerous confrontation with Russia as a distraction, and to all the while pretend they care about the British people while replacing them at an exponential rate. This at first seems hard to understand, especially as the politicians who have so callously presided over the last 8 years of disaster are from Enoch’s former party. What is the difference between the odious non-entities that rule us and a titan like Enoch? It is that Enoch Powell possessed a Heart of Oak – he belonged to that storeyed tradition of great Britons, men and women who believe in Britain and Britishness not as some abstract set of values, but as a primordial and ethnic truth. He took the name of the Conservative Party seriously – he wanted to conserve Britain and the British people, not conserve the economic interests of the few.

As a distinguished classicist he not only understood but relished the fact he was from a heroic Western tradition, he mentally inhabited the same psycho-spiritual plane as the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Victorians. Despite being bookish and genteel, he understood that it isn’t enough to simply ‘believe’ in Britain – you must also be prepared to defend its existence by force if necessary. He served with distinction in the Second World War. Not long after his birth, many in the generation before him had to make the ultimate sacrifice for Britain the First World War. He, unlike our politicians today, understood that nations are not simply unchanging and fixed sterile units – they are maintained by the will and vigour of those who fight for them. Our politicians today are terrified of their inheritance, of their duty. When the movie Dunkirk was released in 2017, depicting the British evacuation at the eponymous battle, it was denounced as being too male, too white, and too violent. What it was in actuality was too British – it scared both the establishment and would-be establishment because it reminded Britons of something they wanted to forget, that this first and foremost has been a nation of warriors, explorers, and conquerors; those possessing hearts of oak.

Our politicians today are so ready to surrender Britain to anarcho-tyranny, to sell it out at every opportunity and to ultimately give up because they have lost the connection to what Britain really is. It is disingenuous to pretend that multiculturalism alone changed British values, it was largely the British elite who lost its nerve in the face of Suez and the dissolution of the Empire. They want the EU to dominate us, because they know that they cannot measure up to the past glories of Britain – they have mournfully abnegated their responsibilities. In Germany and in the formerly Confederate states of America, a process of denunciation of the past has taken place, with violent destructions of old iconography and soul searching about the meaning of identity. In Britain the political class have simply tried to ignore our achievements, to pretend they didn’t happen – just as they are pretending that the people didn’t really want Brexit. They have retreated into fantasy when faced with the harsh realities of the world. They have recast Britain as a lightweight, weak willed and superficial nation – a country of “keep calm and carry on” posters, Harry Potter and self-deprecation. An inoffensive and castrated nation, the risible ‘cuck island’ that acerbic international commentators perceive it to be.

Just as they have bought into a fantasy about the present, they have bought into a fantasy about the nature of the past as well. They largely have shied away from publicly denouncing the British Empire because they have allowed themselves to believe it was simply a technological and commercial entity that spread itself by liberal means; a misunderstanding which coloured their misguided efforts to spread neoliberal utopia to Afghanistan and Iraq. What their value-based perception of British identity has failed to consider, is that it was not technology or trade that made Britain great. It was a raw martial will, a militaristic and hard-edged character of extreme forcefulness and determination that rests beneath the veneer of British politeness. The story of the Empire is one of struggle, in which the natives gave as good as they got. In the Indian Mutiny, at Siege of Khartoum, at Isandlwana, the supposedly passive populations temporarily got the upper hand over the British and massacred the defeated Brits. But in the end, by force of arms, steely determination, and sheer grit Britons prevailed. That is the real character of Britain, the beating hearts of oak that built the British Empire. That is the caste of men that Enoch Powell belonged to.

We must now understand the seriousness of the situation we are faced with, just as Enoch did. If you really believe in what Britain truly is, you will understand that the process we are undergoing is not simply a change of values, or the passing of the generational torch, it is the wholesale destruction of our country and our people. The British lion may have given a mighty roar with Brexit, but it is beset by many hyenas. The machinations of the European Union, the total loss of our personal and political liberties, the rampaging destruction caused by the entirely separate and alien ethnic communities that have been allowed to do as they wish in our midst. It is time for us to develop our own hearts of oak, to understand that we are part of a great and unfinished history, that we belong to the same ilk as Nelson and Wellington.

We with hearts of oak are part of the true British tradition, we hear the voices of Britons who were willing to square up to those who would oppose us and crush them underfoot or to die trying. We remember Gordon of Khartoum, staring down approaching Muslim Mahdists hordes with revolver in hand. We remember Melville and Coghill, valiantly saving the Queen’s colours from the ferocious and frenzied hordes of Zulus. We remember Nelson on the deck of the HMS Victory, dying but still only concerned with his duty. We understand Britain is our lifeboat in a sea of uncertainty and global strife. It is our proud galleon and it is the only one that we have. We may complain about it, we may despise our government, but when we see the British countryside and hear the strains of Elgar, we know we are home. Our ship is sinking fast and Nelson is dying on deck. The war that Enoch Powell warned us of 50 years ago is here now. It is being waged by every grooming gang, every Muslim terrorist, every corrupt and lying politician. It is a war on us, on the British people, and we are losing. But just as at Dunkirk, we may lose the battle, but we will not lose the war. Tonight, the BBC will broadcast Powell’s speech again – and it will be a clarion call for all those with hearts of oak to join together in The New Battle of Britain.  Just as the great heroes of our past, we must raise up our voices and say, Britain is ours – come on ye noblest English! England expects every man to do his duty, and our duty is to repel all boarders. Too much rests on this battle for it to be lost, and we do not intend to.

Acolytes in the Temple of Iron

Identitarian, Masculine

Battle of Augustodunum,  Peter Dennis

You may admire the past – but you wouldn’t want to live in it. This is the most basic repudiation of traditionalism. Life before the modern era was painful, squalid and short. It is thus self-evident that to any progressively minded individual that the crowning achievement of modernity is the longevity and painlessness of contemporary existence. More people are living longer than ever, it is an undeniable fact. The once terrifying scourge of plagues and famines have been nullified, and this was achieved without the help of any God. We have abandoned faith in the divine who no longer can harm us and replaced it with our unquestioning belief in the doctor, the medical researcher, and the pharmaceutical company. These are the new high priests and preachers of a transhumanist utopia which promises a future where every human imperfection can be solved and even improved upon by rational and technological means. Adherence to this cult is now so pervasive that healthcare has become a shibboleth which makes and breaks our governments. We have gleefully trampled on the past in the hysterical stampede towards this new promised land, but in doing so have we blinded ourselves to the possibility that modernity itself may be sick?

While on the surface it seems that the inexorable march of modern medical progress has been an objective and linear improvement in the human lot, there is trouble in paradise. We are faced with being the first generation that may not live as long as parents, not owing to some new and insidious disease or cataclysmic war – but largely because the ravages of plenty have overtaken modern medicine’s ability to deal with them. Diabetes and heart disease are exploding as a result of obesity which is a product of our own gluttony and laziness. The addiction to killing the pain in our life has caused many to kill the pain for good, with deaths from legal drugs now surpassing deaths from illicit substances in many regions; a trend starkly demonstrated by recent reports of an epidemic of deaths attributed to the powerful painkiller fentanyl. While polio, smallpox and measles may have vanished from our collective fears, the rise of chronic diseases is becoming more and more apparent. Crohn’s, Celiac Disease, fibromyalgia, asthma, diabetes and Lupus have now become the consumption and venereal disease of our time. They may not kill – but they are leaving a whole generation of youth locked into a life of pain and despair, with no solution from our new medical overlords in sight.

The picture is even darker for young men, who have now been confirmed as on average possessing less grip strength than their grandparents; coupled with testosterone levels and sperm counts which are in dramatic and largely unexplained freefall. These problems almost pale into insignificance when compared to the tsunami of mental health problems which have washed over society, with rates of depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia skyrocketing to the point they have produced the grim and highly revealing statistic that suicide is now the biggest killer of men under 45 in the UK. It may be the case that modernity has extended our life span, but in doing so it has created lives which many do not actually want to live. The God of new medicine has proven to be as seemingly arbitrary and unmoved by human suffering as the wrathful Lord of the Old Testament. Modernity has failed to live up to its end of the bargain; the promise of an easy path to self-mastery has proved a hollow one. The acceptance of the lie has been aided by the disingenuous soothsayers of modern leftism who have consistently reassured us that humans beings are raw clay, open to being entirely re-worked by technology and ideology.

It may even be the case that modern attitudes have in fact impeded genuine medical progress. It is widely known that the precipitous rise of antibiotic resistant diseases has sprung from modern profligacy with the overuse of antibiotics. It is also true that the major medical breakthroughs that fuelled the rise in life expectancy: the discovery of insulin, the creation of penicillin, the development of anaesthetics are all breakthroughs which pre-date the Second World War, and whether they can even be truly considered ‘modern’ at all is up for debate. Their discoverers may in fact be the inheritors of the more rigorous scientific standards of the Enlightenment, not the products of the affirmative action riddled, subjectivist, and market driven scientific field of today. A new and compelling medical nihilism is developing among some sections of the former faithful, who are daring to question our secular religion, such as Jacob Stegenga and his upcoming book on the topic.

Yet our crusade against the blind and unquestioning belief in modern medicine is not fundamentally based on its efficacy. It does not derive from sour grapes at the fact it has failed to increase our life span to a hundred fifty years; nor is it grounded in disappointment that not one human organ can be replaced by a better synthetic alternative. Our objection is much more fundamental than that. The entire basis of the modern worship of the physician is rotten, not because they can’t achieve what they claim, but because even if they could it would be meaningless. Life is not a game where living another year is an end in itself. Age is not a scoring system. A long life is not necessarily a good life. The modern obsession with clinging to life at all costs has smothered the flame of the heroic impulse, it has rendered us all cowards. Even more damagingly, modern medicine’s quest to delay death has distracted us from our true foe: human entropy. The human experience is one where we are locked in a constant and unending battle with the limits of our own physical and intellectual capabilities. Life is a series of attacks and counter-attacks by the human will battling against the natural decay which we are subjected to. The heroic path in life is not to pray impotently to the medical monolith, hoping it will cure your problems – it is to take your destiny in your own hands. We cannot transcend death, but we may be able to transcend our own limitations.

This notion is not a popular one in today’s society. We have opted to prostate ourselves, grovelling meekly to foolhardy doctors and amoral pharmaceutical companies because most people today have abandoned the unyielding fight against human entropy. They have not only embraced and accepted their own physical and intellectual failings but have sought to make virtues of them. This is why to point out obesity is ‘fat shaming’. It is why the veneration of disability and victimhood is everywhere manifest in society. It is the reason the quest to seek real and meaningful knowledge and to not hand hold those without the capacity is deemed exclusionary and elitist. Even implying that people create their own problems and are at least in part responsible for managing their own health is considered reactionary. The assertion that it is what you do in life, and not how long you live is an explosive challenge which the coddled and craven find deeply uncomfortable. It is time to re-state a primordial truth which may be deeply troubling for those loyal to the necromancers and butchers of the modern medical establishment. Life has no inherent meaning, it is given meaning by our struggle to achieve self-mastery against the constant whirling tides of misfortune, decay, disease and violent opposition.

A whole generation of young men have simply rotted and withered away awaiting the transhumanist utopia promised by modernity and the Left. A hundred years ago the flower of European youth died in the blood and mud of the Great War. A century later that youth is fat, weak, depressed, and fundamentally unfulfilled – it has been stultified almost beyond salvation. The death in the trenches has been replaced with the purgatory of spiritual death. Idleness is killing society as surely as warfare did. The human spirit yearns to test itself against the limits of life, to be allowed to strive for greatness, to burn with the brightness of youthful vitality. Modernity offers us only the fear and temptation of death, the goal of doing nothing but simply staying alive for the sake of it and the sweet release of the ending the boredom of a life lived in such way. The average life expectancy of a Roman was 25, yet their lack of longevity did not preclude their greatness – in fact it contributed to it. The choice of a painful death in the service of glory and greatness, or the ‘easy’ death amid clinical surroundings of a local hospital is a false dichotomy. Living entails pain; dying entails pain. It is time to stop buying into the modernist belief it can be avoided, but instead meet the prospect of our own mortality head on.

It is long past time to completely reject the failed church of modernity: its promises have been laid bare. It is now the time to live like the Roman; to embrace the spirit of the youth who a century ago chose to charge machine guns rather than to petrify and decay. It is time to don your robes and become acolytes in the Temple of Iron, to adopt the credo of Yukio Mishima and the Golden One that we must make savage the body and civilise the mind. Step out of the shadows and dispel the fear of death, laugh in the face of those who are vainly demanding clemency and that nature itself abide by the imaginary laws of equality. Wear your body with pride, and always seek self-betterment. Be the first to point out that modernity is sick, and we acolytes in the Temple of Iron are healthy.

Sparks from the Golden Anvil: How to Save Western Civilization

Evola, Traditionalism

Joseph Derby Wright, The Iron Forge

An awakening has taken place in European consciousness. Never before have so many minds almost independently concluded that there is something deeply and irreparably wrong with the system that rules them. Whether in Hungary, Austria, or the United Kingdom an irrepressible torrent of revolutionary spirit is threatening to break the dam of modernist thought. The primal, inchoate and unshakable desire to revolt against the modern world has spread across Europe like a series of lightning strikes. To capture and direct this tumultuous raw energy requires two fundamental things: to understand our enemy, and to know how to defeat it. Those claiming intellectual leadership of this nascent movement for the renewal of the European spirit have so far failed to provide a coherent vision of who our foe is or how to beat them. If we want to succeed, we have to change this now. It is time to develop a plan that can save Western civilization from its manifold enemies.

But before we can do that, we must ask who are these enemies? It is obvious to almost everyone that modernity is the enemy of a continued European way of life. But what is modernity? The orthodox view for many in the movement is that modernity is simply a point in time – it is the present and everything that has been created in the present. Modernity by this definition is reduced to skyscrapers, computers, automated factories, big tech and global government. Thus, if our enemy is the notion of technological progress, then all we need to do to defeat it is to simply go back in time. Mass migration, big government, the destruction of the family unit, and the death of religion have all happened in the present – therefore the material conditions of modern life must be the cause of these ills. To put it simply, the plough is innately more noble than the combine harvester, the oast house is more beautiful than the modern brewery.

To those content with this superficial account, an understanding of a purely technological explanation seems like a solid foundation to save Western civilization. But it is a foundation built on a misunderstanding. Those who accept this line of thought are confusing medium and message. The modern world is not evil because it has skyscrapers or computers. We are not engaged in a battle with an architectural style or an economic system – but with an ideology that has injected itself into every facet of our lives. To subscribe to technological determinism is to put European man in the role of permanent museum curator. True traditionalism is honouring and understanding the achievements of the past but having the will to build on and surpass them. The original European Renaissance was wrought by those who looked upon antiquity at first with awe, but then with the hubris and colossal will necessary to believe they could do better than it and recreate it in the medium of their own time. The artists of the Italian Renaissance had no compunction about painting the Romans in Renaissance dress.

Technology is a means at the disposal of the European spirit – it always has been. The great cathedrals of the past were built with cranes. The plough in itself was not more noble, it was the system which harnessed it that made it so. To attempt to go back in time is not only impractical, but harmful to the European spirit because ultimately the flaw in the logic of the neo-Luddites is that it was the European who created the modern world. Isaac Newton and Darwin did so willingly, and given the chance, if we rewound the tape it would play out in the same fashion. Society cannot be kept in a static vacuum, nor should it be. But if we are not revolting against the supposed depredations of the material conditions of modern life, what are we fighting against?

Our fight is not fundamentally about the fact that modernity has forced us to live an urban, technological life. It is about the fact modernity is bent on killing us and expunging our record from this earth. It is a death cult that has inverted every positive aspect of the European spirit and turned our nature against us. Where once technology was used in the service of the betterment of our lives, it now constrains us – with surveillance, with oppressive state power, with the speedy importation of our lower paid and more co-operative replacements. It does not need to be this way. It is not bricks, steel and glass that have made our world ugly but the pernicious and warped ideology of the architects that built them. Therefore, we are not engaged in a battle with a point in time, we are locked in a struggle for survival with a set of alien ideas. The particular must be championed against the global. The metaphysical good must be pitted against relativistic nihilism. The nation must triumph against the international. The European spirit must not be subsumed by the Islamic.

Yet how can we hope to triumph in a war of ideas? We must first and foremost understand that culture forms the basis of civilization – and culture is at its elemental level simply a set of ideas. While political activism seems the obvious recourse for those wanting to destroy the modern world, the real revolt in modernity is to create great works and to contribute to our culture. The reason the traditionalist has lost almost all the culture wars of the late 20th and early 21st century is that he has not even been on the field to fight them. Not only has the orthodox traditionalist view failed see to that our enemy is not material progress; but it has wrongly assumed that cultural developments in the modern world are inherently harmful to a traditionalist message. It is common to look down on cinema and video games as mediums that can only serve the modernist; mediums to be rejected. This is a catastrophic mistake.

The enemy is winning the war of ideas because modernism makes no distinction between high and low culture – it inserts itself into every sphere of human activity. Modern films are inculcated with the message that Europeans are a blight and should despise themselves. Modern buildings have no connection to the nations that host them. Modern TV shows and video games are literally re-writing history to co-opt and subvert the achievements of European heroes of the past. Marxist deconstruction operates just as effectively on opera as it does on Saturday night television. The traditionalists who believe that shunning popular culture and adopting the strategy of the hermit will save them are wrong. To guarantee our continued existence we must believe not only in the past, but in the future. We must imagine an alternative world where all culture is once again harnessed in the service of creating a healthy, progressive and upward future for our civilization.

The orthodox traditionalist has already consigned Western civilization to the funeral pyre, they are the last Roman loyally at their post as the Pompeii of modernity destroys us forever. We must be engaged in creating a new radical traditionalism that believes that if we want to live, we must create. We are the new generation of Wagner’s warriors, taking up the mantle of the Gesamtkunstwerk, turning our lives into a piece of total art. We recognise no distinction between high and low culture; whatever we do – whether making video games, shooting cinema, or writing fiction we do not ask ourselves is this medium traditional? We instead set ourselves to the task of creating works of beauty, works which honour European history, works which raise our consciousness and above all instil our people with the will to survive. This not a hypothetical exercise, because we can look back to examples of the recent past to see how it is done. In the early dawn of what later came to be known as modernist architecture, in the Venetian Prealps the monument to the Italian war dead at Monte Grappa proved that concrete and modern building methods could be pressganged into the service of traditionalist aims – to honour the past.

Likewise, in the golden era of PC games the medium was de facto traditionalist. Games like Caesar and Civilization inspired the young with a new digital rendering faithful to our past, while adventure and roleplaying games like Heroes of Might and Magic introduced many to European mythology. Perhaps unknowingly the architects of the memorial at Monte Grappa and the designers of these games provided a fleeting glimpse into an alternative world – a world where modern games, modern architecture, modern culture is not antithetical to traditionalism, but promotes it. We must take up where they left off – to win the war of ideas all we have to do is to imagine a future in which we could live; a future for us and by us, a future unrestrained by the fastidious and wrongheaded belief that Western man is confined to the same set of tools he had five hundred years ago. The new generation of Wagner’s warriors are pushing aside the dusty and petrified last Roman and leaping onto the funeral pyre to rescue Mother Europa from the flames, because we believe Western culture is not dead, but lives through us and our acts of creation.

Once we grasp that our culture is the arsenal that we must use fight the ideational war in which we are engaged in, we can direct all our efforts to bolstering this great armoury. Every game we make, every movie we produce, every work of literature we pen, is a bullet we are firing at the monolith that is modernity. Every work of cultural significance is the forging of another spearhead that we can thrust into the odious and misguided minds that now rule us. The act of creation is our collective work to wire the cultural bomb that will blow up the foundations of modern life and ultimately free us of its deathly mental grip.While this war may be ideational, it involves real dangers and real sacrifice – the road will not be easy, because in every great artistic work, every true piece of beauty brought into human life, there is a cost.

The stones of Neuschwanstein are coated in the blood of both its patron and its builders. The elegant squares of St. Petersburg rest upon the bones of the serfs who created it. Likewise, the madness that overtook Nietzsche was the price he paid for birthing his intellectual works. The re-casting of art and culture as an activity for the weak and effeminate is yet another corridor of the mendacious mental maze that is modernity. Serving in the war of ideas will require tough characters, and it always did – the great Renaissance masters may have painted high art, but Caravaggio was no stranger to the drawn dagger in the defence of his artistic ideas. We must re-embrace the masculine, Byronic and D’Annunzian view of culture. If we do this, we will easily sweep the modernists from the field of ideas, because still innate within the European mind is the will to live, the deep-seated desire for beauty, and the divine spark necessary to create great works.

The worldview of the orthodox traditionalists is ultimately a dereliction of duty. They praise the past and want to live in its warm womb simply because they are too timid, too craven, too weak to believe that this generation alive today could contain another Dante, another Wagner, not operating in some anachronistic style – but who was a master in wielding modern mediums in the service of traditionalist aims. The virtue of European civilization has in fact always been its malleability, it has been forged and re-cast more times than we care to remember. Traditionalism is simply the challenge of issued by our forefathers – the offering of the divine hammer of culture by the craftsmen and artists of our distant past to the new generation. The orthodox traditionalists don’t believe we have the strength to wield the hammer; and the modernists can’t imagine we’d dare to wield it.

All we need to do to save Western civilization is to understand that traditionalism is not a style, or a museum, it is the transmission of culture from one generation of Europeans to the next. European civilization is a gleaming golden anvil on which we constantly re-forge ourselves in a new image. We are currently staring at the broken, shattered shards of our inheritance – but we can re-forge them once again. All we must do is believe that we come from those endowed with the sacred will to live and create, and the challenge of recasting European civilization now falls to us. We should not shrink from this task, but relish it. With all our collective strength,  we must strike the Golden Anvil and watch the sparks that fly from it reignite the yearning hearts of those Europeans who want to revolt against the modern world, see our people live, and forge a new European century, even more bejewelled and glorious than the last.

 

Hail to our people!

Hail to the three-thousand of Charlottesville who rode with Robert E. Lee and gave the rebel yell, which was heard across America!

Hail to the Briton, who when duty demanded emerged from sleepy shires and windswept Welsh valleys to decree the nation might be free!

Hail to the Austrian, secure in his mountain halls of stone against the flood!

Hail to the Visegrad Four, the shield of Europe, stalwart as Sobieski’s hussars!

Hail to the unvanquished East, confounder of evil schemes!

Hail to all our people who dream we might yet live!

Ride For Ruin! European Kamikaze

Identitarian, European

Alan Lee, Helm’s Deep

Everything is broken. We have been so utterly severed from our cultural and spiritual moorings that the damage is irreparable. Our administrative, social and political systems are now in terminal decline. Demographically, Europeans who once constituted a quarter of the global population a mere sixty years ago are now barely more than a numerical speck – numbering just over one tenth of the total world headcount and dwindling fast. Oppressive technocratic global institutions working hand in hand with mega corporations have all but succeeded in crushing both individual freedom and the national will. Economically, the system has become so grossly skewed that eight corrupt individuals have succeeded in amassing more wealth than the bottom 50% of the globe while the average taxpayer is asked to pay ever more to prop up the rigged enterprise. Civilisation is beyond repair.

Yet this has not stopped the majority of people from attempting to adapt to this new reality. They have deceived themselves that we can co-exist with chaos; that we can appease entropy itself. They have retreated from truly imagining the implications of the collapse of Western civilisation. No amount of wealth will be able to insulate them either from the insatiable avarice of corrupt and tyrannical government or from the hordes of the envious and alien newcomers we have allowed onto our shores. Their white picket fence fantasy of two children and a nice family car has catastrophically failed to adjust to a world in which governments have cravenly abandoned their duty to stop children being blown up at pop concerts, preyed upon in the streets, or mowed down at Christmas markets. There is no future for children who are to be brought up as an embattled, hated minority in a crumbling country – and there is no future for their parents either. It is as impossible for the individual to co-exist with modernity as it was for the citizens of Pompeii to co-exist with the volcanic eruption. Modernity has destroyed everything.

Most will not accept this conclusion and will continue in their delusions. For others, the realisation will be too painful and will drive them down the road of depression and despair. Yet to the thoughtful, the steely willed and the stout hearted this realisation is not depressing – but liberating. The worst of what could happen to us has already happened. We have been freed from the burdens of worrying about the good life, of attempting to maximise our own pleasure and comfort. We understand that there will be no peaceful rest in this life, that we are men amongst the ruins. We have been given a gift. While many have wasted their lives looking for purpose, we understand that in a ravaged, broken world there can be only one course of action: resistance. We must now turn all our resources, all our strength, and all our creative energy to the total overthrow of modernity and its acolytes. It is an almost impossible task. Our revolt is not simply against political parties and economic systems, but against the fundamental building blocks of reality. A revolt against demography and cold arithmetic, against epistemology and corrupted philosophy, against sterile rationalism and the death of spirit.

Compelling a civilisation to live again would be a difficult enough task, yet we are attempting to do so in a near universally hostile world. To believe we can succeed is fantastical, little more than a comforting dream. Yet we are not calculating utilitarians carefully weighting up the probability of success or failure; we are driven to our desperate rebellion because it is the only morally responsible thing to do. In an irrational, broken and morally ill society the only virtuous course of action is to seek to overturn it. Only by participating in this resistance will we be able to look ourselves in the eye and say truthfully that we are honourable. It is likely not only that we will fail, but that in the struggle we will be destroyed– financially, socially, and physically. Yet what happiness would money, prestige or good health have given us in a world which was not our own – a world in which we are spectators, subordinates and slaves? It is time for us to embrace the credo of Heroic Nihilism. Everything is broken. Everything is beyond repair. Yet we will revolt and sacrifice ourselves anyway, because the act of resistance in itself is heroic; because the greater the odds, the greater the share of glory; and because when we arrive at St Peter’s gates or cross the Rainbow Bridge to Valhalla we can do so with our heads held high, to be ranked amongst the greatest warriors and poets of the ages.

By adopting the credo of Heroic Nihilism, we have already initiated the first phase of our total revolt against modernity. We finally understand that the globalist elite and its collaborators have everything to lose, while we have nothing. It is the hyper rich oligarchs, the corrupt politicians, the protected minorities and the selfish hedonists who are the ones who fear us, not the other way around. Nothing they can do to us is worse than what has already been done. They have pilfered our wealth, ground down our cultural icons, and stolen our future. It is time for us to accept our role as the Generation of Revenge, and to understand it is not modernity that is the wave which is crashing into us, but we are the wave that will crash into modernity and wash it away. We must reimagine ourselves – we are no longer atomised and timid, we are Panzer tanks rolling across the open steppes, all personal tragedy and doubt bouncing off our armoured hulls. We are as fanatical as Japanese fighter pilots, ready to slam ourselves into the aircraft carrier that is modernity. We are as iron willed as Jan Sobieski’s Polish hussars, charging into the Ottomans. We are the European Kamikaze and we are here to destroy the destroyers.

Though it has become fashionable to talk of sacrifice only in terms of the ancient East, of Kamikaze, Seppuku and Bushido, we must remember that what we are doing is not alien to the European spirit – but fundamental to it. Whether on the fields of the Somme, Lepanto, or Vienna, being European is a responsibility not a right. Nearly every generation of Europeans has faced its test of mettle, its call to sacrifice, its darkest hour. Ours may seem the darkest of all, because if we lose, we will be the final generation. Yet it also makes our resistance the most meaningful. By embracing Heroic Nihilism, by sallying forth, we are reconnecting ourselves with the great European tradition of self-sacrifice. And though our chance of success seems so slim, the embers of hope seem so faint, if we Ride for Ruin without consideration for our personal safety or prospect of victory, the galloping riders of the European Kamikaze may just prevail- and even if they don’t they will have at least made an end worthy of the greatest of European sagas.

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.

Older posts