Page 4 of 4

The Long March of the Patriots

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.

Revolution hangs in the balance

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

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

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

Of Titans and Pygmies

June 21, 2016 / admin / 0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcendental Titans: The Identitarian Credo

March 5, 2016 / admin / 1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcendental Titans

Revolt Against Modernity

Page 4 of 4

The Long March of the Patriots

Of Titans and Pygmies

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta