Transcendental Titans

Revolt Against Modernity

Tag: Alt Right

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!

Generation Nomad: Travellers Without Destination

Identitarian, Alt Right

Bridal Journey, Adolph Tidemand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europa Wept Blood

Alt Right, Berlin Attacks

The Parting, Eskil Winge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Long March of the Patriots

Brexit, Trump

Washington Crosses the Delaware, Emanuel Leutze, 1851

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Right, MAGA

Revolution hangs in the balance

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

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

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