Retroculture is a rediscovery of the past and the good things it has to offer. More, it is a recovery of those good things, so we may enjoy them as our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents enjoyed them. Retroculture rejects the idea that “You can’t go back.” What we have done before, we can obviously do again. For many years, Americans lived in a land that was safe, solid and comfortable, a civil and even graceful society where life for the overwhelming majority was both pleasant and good. What worked for them can work for us. We can recover the good things they had and knew.
Conventional wisdom says we have no choice but to drive blindly onward into an undefined but increasingly threatening future. Retroculture replies, “Hold on a minute.” We do have a choice. Through a dialogue with the past, we can shape that future. We can find ways, by looking back, to make the future promising rather than threatening. We can regain control of our destiny. And in the process, we can reunify the generations instead of pitting one age group against another.
Retroculture reverses the trend this country has been following since the mid-1960s. “Old is bad, new is good” has been the watchword of the last five decades. And it has ended up in a mess. Now, Americans from every walk of life are saying “Enough!” Life yesterday was better in a great many ways than life is today. The time has come to recapture the good things Americans had and have lost. The future can be better than the past – provided we look to the past for guidance.
Breaking away from “Selfism”
Americans are realizing that the time has come to free themselves from the unhealthy fascination with “self’ that has become almost an addiction since the 1960s. “Selfism,” – making the self the focus of life – goes back much further, but traditional moral values always held it in check. Traditional values told us to put service above self. They taught us that happiness comes from disciplining and mastering the rapacious demands of the self, not giving in to them. American culture expected people to focus their lives outward, to do useful things and help other people. It regarded “me first” as a sign of childishness – and of a spoiled child at that.
The flower children of the late 1960s turned these traditional values upside-down. They had the amazingly naive idea that a new “youth culture” could make the world perfect by ignoring “what other people think” and encouraging young people to do whatever felt good whenever they felt like doing it.
“Do your own thing!” became the battle cry of the hippies. Of course, your own thing mustn’t be anything your parents or grandparents might do. If possible, it had to be something they wouldn’t like at all. Hippies had to be hip, and that meant cutting themselves off from the ideas and standards of older people – except for a few older hip gurus like Timothy Leary or Alan Ginsberg. “Don’t trust anyone over thirty,” the youth culture advised. Get rid of all the garbage you’ve been taught. Drop out of the world of families, schools, and workplaces. “Get in touch with your feelings.”
But self-discovery, self-realization, and self-fulfillment didn’t make life any better. They often made it worse. Youth communes that were supposed to blaze the way to a perfect society instead fell apart because members had no sense of loyalty to the group or to each other. Widely publicized “alternate lifestyles” turned out to be fads, their followers soon growing bored and wandering off. It seemed that however much the self was given it always wanted more. A new pleasure worked a couple of times, then it was dead, and something more extreme had to follow to keep the ever-demanding self “feeling good.”
By the mid-1990s almost everybody realized that self-indulgence was not going to save the world or even make it better. But by then, the habit of “selfism” had become too strong to break. Besides, there wasn’t much else left. The youth culture of the 60s and early 70s may not have produced anything of lasting value, but it managed to trash the ideals of self-restraint and respect for the wisdom of the ages.
So, the youth culture became “thirty-something” as the baby-boomers drifted through the mindless, feel-good glitter of the disco scene and on into the 1990s. The 90s completed the work of the 60s. With the self still in the driver’s seat, things – possessions and image – became the new road to self-fulfillment. Doing your own thing became doing whatever it took to get the trappings of wealth, power and status. In the process, modesty, honesty and fair dealing followed all the other old values onto the scrap heap.
That didn’t work either, of course. We still couldn’t keep up with the demands of the self, no matter how hard we worked to further our career, get seen in the right places, and pile up designer stuff. “Dressing for success,” “winning by intimidation,” and keeping score in terms of possessions didn’t satisfy us any more than “liberation” and “feeling good.” Paper profits melted in the following recession. Personal debt piled up. Houses and cars and boats became sources of worry rather than satisfaction.
Selfism, it seems, has run head-on into the wall of reality and gone splat. Now, in the 21st century, people are looking back to the times before the wreck. For many young Americans, it seems that the last people they remember being really content were their grandparents. The last time life was good was the 1950s, when most things were still done the old way.
A national poll, taken as early as 1992, showed how people were even then looking back fondly toward the past. 49% thought life in the past was better than it is today; only 17% thought it was worse. 47% felt that their grandparents’ lives were happier than their own; only 29% felt they were not as happy. 56% had a generally favorable impression of the Victorian period. A whopping 58% of those polled thought that our nation’s political leaders should be leading us back towards the way we used to be.
A Dialogue with the Past
Americans today communicate with a far wider variety of people than ever before, or at least so it seems. Social media, Skype and email connect us to others around the world. We travel to other countries, we go out for Thai or Vietnamese or Caribbean dinners, we see foreign films and drive foreign cars. CNN keeps us up on the very latest news from all around the world.
But there is a large group of people with whom we communicate little, if at all: the Americans who lived before us. And what stories they have to tell! We have more in common with them than with almost anyone else. After all, they lived where we live, saw many of the same scenes we see, and faced many of the same problems.
True, they are no longer with us. But they left us a great many messages, in books and family letters, in the houses and towns they built, and in the furniture, clothes and music they created. In fact, they left us a large sample of the things that made up their daily lives. And they also left us their thoughts: the values and beliefs they held, ideas of how to live and the reasons to live that way, and memories of specific people – sometimes from our own families – memories that tell us why their lives were respected and even revered by those they touched.
Through the things they left behind we can talk with those who have gone before us. The dialogue can add great richness to our own lives. The immensely popular PBS television series The Civil War1 gave Americans a sense of what a dialogue with the past can offer. Seldom has a television series gripped so many people’s emotions so powerfully. Why? Because in it Americans from the past spoke directly to us.
The series had no dialogue between actors. Instead, it presented the words of the people who lived over 100 years ago in many of the same places where we live now. They spoke to us through their diaries, their letters home, their personal photographs. They spoke to us not as names in history books, but as real people struggling with real problems, and we realized that they have a great deal to say to us.
In discovering our own past in people and how they lived, not just in dry facts, we can take a fresh look at ourselves and our own lives. We can learn from their experience. We can find out how they protected themselves from life’s harsh blows through the warmth and mutual support of strong families. We can learn how they educated themselves and find that in many ways they were better educated than we are, even if they did not know how to use a computer or a smartphone. We can discover how, with much less wealth and fewer possessions than we have, they managed to build lives we often envy.
We realized in watching The Civil War that our own past, the past that earlier Americans lived, has become stranger to us than the African bush or the Amazon rain forest ever were to them. And we realized at the same time that this need not be so. The past is there, waiting for us to uncover it. We can read the words of those who are gone. And we can also learn from the many people still alive today who remember how people lived before America rejected its inheritance. The enduring pleasures of Retroculture lie in coming home to what is ours.
1 This was a highly popular mini-series on the Civil War directed by Ken Burns and broadcasted in 1990. The viewing figures were enormous, with roughly 39 million viewers tuning in to any one episode. The series has since been digitally restored and re-released on DVD in 2015. — Editor.
Today’s problems are as much the fault of Ayn Rand as they are of Karl Marx, or those deemed the Cultural Marxists. None seem to realize that!
Yes, but Ayn Rand was never meant to create the Right Wing, she was deployed to weaken the left wing. Those who were headed for atheist, marxism, were taken off that course and neutralized. Yes, they will rarely be right wing (Conservative) loyalists, but they will not be rabid atheists.
That is really very interesting to ponder. After all, Ayn Rand did not like Conservatives much more than she liked Communists. She even wrote an essay: “On Racism”.
I appreciate Mr. Lind’s ability to articulate what most of us are already thinking and feeling, and share his desire to return to a gentler, slower, and kinder pace of life. Many people are too eager to storm ahead into a shapeless future that can bring only calamity and meaninglessness. Despite my sympathies with Mr. Lind’s position, I suspect that his argument is guided more by nostalgia and wishful thinking than nuance and rigor. He hesitates to share any concrete or reliable data to verify his claim that “the past” (in this case, the 1950s) was objectively and quantitatively superior to the present. On the contrary, he appears to rest his assertions on a study that asked people whether they “thought” that life in the past (their grandparent’s past or the Victorian period) was better. I fear that Mr. Lind may mistake a glance at the past through rose-colored glasses for perspicacity.
Additionally, I worry that it may not be possible to restore the retroculture of the 1950s without enormous changes in our economic system. Back in the day, a young man could apply for a factory or office job that would support him and his family until the day of his retirement. Nowadays, many young people lack this sense of security. People who work on a “part-time” and precarious job market are bound to be more self-centered and short-termist in their approach to life. Unless the exploitative hiring practices of neoliberalism are combated, it is unlikely that many people will be able to afford a retroculture lifestyle.
Finally, I would like to address a matter that appears in the first chapter (“Signs of Change) of Mr. Lind’s book. (I understand that I am reaching beyond the content of this blogpost, yet I think that my objection remains relevant). Mr. Lind points out that cohorts of young people are developing an interest in old-fashioned lifestyles, hobbies, and pastimes. Such developments, according to Mr. Lind, indicate that we are already heading in the direction of retroculture. I demur. It seems to me that most of these vintage-obsessed hipsters indulge in retroculture as another form of consumerist lifestylism. (I speak from experience in various swing-dancing communities over the past few years). They may be sporting sharp double-breasted suits, but I guarantee that they still carry the latest iPhone in their trouser pocket. As such, I worry that “the 1950s” has been sucked into the vortex of mass culture, and fear that we may never be able to recover it. As Evola advised, we may need to turn to much more integral traditions for inspiration and guidance.
Mind you, I think that is a very interesting commentary. Still, things have changed for the worse, even since the 1980’s. Indeed, I have never even heard of LGBTQ before then. Homosexuality was considered bad, back then.
I would very much like to become more Retrocultural Myself. That would obviously be very interesting. Never much liked computers, though. I had been more into Creative Writing than Programming. How about you?
as to the boomer/gen x-z not eschewing higher tech… this doesn’t necessarily exclude them from possession of more retro values, sensibilities and hobbies. i speak as a boomer/gen x cusp, mother to two gen y’s and one gen z, who were teethed on tech, they had our older computers to baby bang on. the twins are (i’m convinced) time travelers from possibly the 1940’s in style, and Jane Austenites in soul/hobbies, who wield the tech as second nature, both finishin’ up Internet Security degrees, the bebe.. she’s a creature of this age, she did a Communications degree… went thru the teen angst blue hair goth kick, and came out the other side, no tattoos or odd piercings or bastard kids. the all love guns, sports shooting, jeeps, archery…. and think 99% of ‘popular’ culture sucks.
yes, they’re all voting repub.. they have no other choice and they know it. it’s simply buying time.. however………necessary.
Well, Well. This is something. To tell you the truth, I’m not sure if this will work. The fifty’s did have great things; Democrats weren’t so fiery against Republicans (judging on modern standards), malt shops, and a stronger sense of family values. But it also had segregation, an extremely radical fear of communism that lead to massive witch hunts alienating anyone who agreed in a LITTLE against the ‘American Way,’ and television with bland, morally perfect protagonist that we couldn’t relate to. I’ve been looking into Mr. Lind since I discovered his dystopian thriller ‘Victoria’ and while I do sympathies with his stance, I question the reality of his solutions. Things change, we can’t help that. If you are a traditionalist do you look at a woman in everyday wear and do you see a whore should or do you see a woman in everyday wear? What was seen as immodest 120 years ago doesn’t turn heads today even if we wish for a return to those ‘Good Ole’ Days.’ I have to agree with Jacques Mellon here that William Lind is looking threw rose colored glasses. Yes there are things we can learn from our past, we must never forget it but there are things we should be glad are gone, accept that things change that are beyond our control and personalty strive to practice our own personal ideas of morality in our live to better ourselves and others.
Yes, I’m a conservative but I’m not quite a traditionalist in a sense. I RESPECT tradition but I know it can hold you down with outdated, inferior ideas. I believe that first we must discover ourselves; the Individuals, then as Individuals we must decide how we can help each other, working together for a better future. An Individual collective, in a sence.
And lest be honest, with all the things we have now do we really want to go back without then? After all we are all reading this on the Internet with our computers/devices. Even with this ‘Retro Culture’ would we give EVERYTHING up made after 1959?
I think we will have to slow down technological progress somehow. After all, we are getting more and more dependent upon oil!
Mr. Lind’s, ‘Retroculture: Taking America Back’, is a pleasant Sunday read. I believe that the author adequately preempts the critiques that might immediately come to mind. At the outset, Lind indicates that his effort is to situate the retrocultural movement, at its best, as a sweep from the past through to the future: a future in which we are free to create socially and technologically. Thus, it is an integrative sweep. The mention of the Seaside community brought back memories formed while working part-time, as a student, in an architectural library. The head librarian assigned the individual staff members projects researching and creating small displays of featuring architectural topics. Seaside Village was one of my assignments. Again, it is explicitly clear that Lind is not interested in superficialities. Rather these attempts at living out and investing considerably in the re-creation of buildings, vehicles, clothing, activities and manners has an import and value that is inherently and organically worthwhile. The more gently and seamlessly that one incorporates retrocultural sensibility into one life and family, the more authentic it is. Spaces, places and artifacts have a way of structuring our behavior, mood and imagination so as to predispose us to more easily discover the underlying virtue that generated attractive, external manifestations in an earlier time. But verities are timeless, contrary to the obsession with vain pretentions of progress. The countering values of retroculture–or we might call it “enduring culture with various accents”–is not so much a work with a temporal arrow, but one with a moral vector. Further, its mechanism of action is similar to the automatic internalization that is suggested by the admonition to “assume the virtue though you have it not,” or to “smile until you are happy.” This approach respects the the bidirectional nature of causality given our unified spiritual-psychological-physical being. And, naturally, Lind invites the reader to quite consciously invest in discovering the intangibles that produce enduring, tangible beauty. ‘Retroculture’ was published in 2019. William Lind will almost need to add a chapter now, in 2020, on the tearing down of statues—and the restoring of those statues, and more. Retrocultural work, done very intentionally, can be our generation’s way of giving some nudges–or numerous good shoves–back against the progressive and dissolving forces that we have ill-advisedly allowed to accumulate. We must rather confidently, even boldly, assert, our values are part of us, our identity. For me and my people we need to create environments that fit our internal, kindred beings and which give us freedom to move effectively and to flourish. In fact, the enduring culture that runs from past to future is so important that it is worth defending with all we have.
Things seem to be getting weirder all the time. I wonder. Has anyone else ever notice that? Times have changed, especially since the 1980’s.
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”
We must not become obsequious and blind folowers and idolizers in the face of gifted men, but we certainly do need to consider reasoning offered those who have worked hard to think. (This is my argument for hierarchy.) Then we, given our individual gifts, need to think hard in examining their words, arguments and explanations. We need to discuss what they have considered. There is no room for deferring to people simply because they have crawled on top of others on the way to claiming superficial, positional power and respect. We must quit being people pleasers and seeking to conform to the crowd wherever they go. We must quit attempting to to hide orselfves within the mob.
If we do these things, we will begin to see things become less, as you say, “weird.”
Almost nobody is patriotic to America anymore. Even most “Conservatives” are more loyal to The State of Israel than they are to their own Country (or, I should say, what is left of it).
Things have been going down hill, ever since Ronald Reagan left office in 1988. Odd to say, but I actually miss the 1980’s. After all, we never even heard of the Transgender movement, the Involuntarily Celibate, or the MGTOW morons. Of course, there was Feminism, but Homosexuality was frowned upon.
Still, there were those uncanny movies, that vilified our own US Military rather than the Official Enemy, which were usually set in Vietnam during the 1960’s. Why, oh why, would anyone actually want to make movies like those? Made no sense then, and, it makes no sense now.
There should NEVER have been the legalization of “Same Sex Marriage”. After all, it opened the door to the entire LGBTQ movement too. Moreover, I have become disillusioned ever since they decided that Homosexuality is not a mental illness. How about the rest of you?
Twin ruler: E. Michael Jones, Kevin MacDonald, Andrew Joyce, Tim Kelly & Joe Atwill and others have covered the topics you touched upon. Though their viewpoints do not overlap point-by-point, you can cobble together a powerful analysis to your suiting. Throw in ‘Tragedy & Hope’ by Quigley and ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island’ into your Christmas reading list, not to mention by asking yourself: “What does ‘Building 7’ really tell mean? What does it mean that ALL of the doctors in Parkland Hospital were agreed that JFK was sot from the front as well? Why is it that we were told–taking them for their word–500-some people were shot in Las Vegas in 2017 and, again, reputedly 50 or so were killed—but this was NOT a major story and it is NOT a major story now? Do you really believe that these things are truly solved by attribution to the “single, lone, nuts?” Tackle these topics not for entertainment purposes, not to lead to despair, not to lead to specuation into crazy Martian nonsense—but to say, okay, (1) how are we going to resist and (2) how are we going to build world that works for us? Anything else is vane idleness. What do you make of COVID hysteria? If Sars-CoV-2 is a real and simply natural virus (which is legitimately questionable), is there a far superior means for dealing with it rather than suspending the societies and economies of the world? Is there not a smarter way of advancing science and technology in gearmesh with societies and civilizations as if people mattered? Because I am proudly European, it is my duty to direct my humanitarian concerns and efforts to assisting European peoples who have been under attack for over a hundred years, at least, but actually how far back would you like to go to begin writing the history of this struggle?
Hmmm, that is all rather interesting.
And more to come.
I think I know what Hitler’s actual religion really was! It was a variant of Hindu Christianity. Just like there is Judeo Christianity, there is also Hindu Christianity. Hitler took the idea of an Aryan Race as well as the Swastika from Hinduism, and he took the idea that the Jews are the Children of the Devil, from Christianity (John 8:44). A very creative form of religious syncretism, I must say. It was really genius level of him.
Intriguingly, though atheist materialists, like Richard Dawkins, in all likely ridicule the beliefs Jews and Muslims have about being The Chosen People of God; I am sure that Mr. Dawkins does believe that the White Race, or to be more precise The English Race, was selected by Evolution to be the Favored Race, of Organisms of the Species Homo sapiens. That is precisely what Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace argued. Still, just as Jews feared they would lose the protection of God, Evolutionists similarly fear they will lose the favor of Evolution. For, during the 19th Century, there was much fear of the Race degenerating, and reverting back to apehood.
What comments do the rest of you have on that? I wonder.
No comments from me. This would take me too far afield to study up on. Unless there is some expert out there on the assortment of topics that you have combined, I suspect that you would have to do the long, hard research needed, as well as write the foundational books, for folks to begin to consider and form reactions to you associations. But maybe I am wrong.
Just between you and me, I firmly suspect that the US Government desired the Shatter Zone of Eastern Europe for themselves. You see, that is America’s ulterior motive for their fixated hatred of the Russian and German people alike. The Shatter Zone being all the lands between Russia and Germany.
Of course, the typical American will rationalize to themselves that their hatred of Russian and German people is due to moral outrage over Stalinism and Nazism respectively. And, indeed, the typical American, being typically American, would believe that himself (or herself). Still, I would advance the argument that Americans’ true source of hatred is rooted in envy. Yes, Americans are envious of the Russians and Germans, simply because the Russians and Germans have better looking women. Needless to say, the Arabs and the Israelis have this problem too.
And make no mistake, the US Military actually carries out many, many of the very same types of military atrocities and crimes against Humanity, usually associated with their Official Enemies, like Russia and Germany. And, I mean, not only did they do so in Vietnam and Korea, but also earlier in The Second World War (the Good War, the one Americans seem to feel such patriotism about). After all, the US Military, itself, is not above such evil deeds as: burning families out of their homes, raping women, murdering children, and even setting up their very own types of Prison and Concentration Camps, wherein they, too, torture their victims to death in the most horrid ways one can envision.
US hypocrisy is truly sickening! And, that is not to speak of the US decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Returning to the original topic of Retroculture, much can be achieved by each individual and each family trying in little ways to build traditional, foundational, functionally sound, local communities—as well as being savvy and self-educated about big issues in politics, science, history and religion. It really is much easier than it might seem. What makes this work is people being able to talk with neighbors. If one develops esoteric interests in any one of a plethora of serious, worthwhile things, this too can be satisfied by membership in online communities. Despite the powers of Oligarchs and their assorted minions and fabricated pressure groups, we have tremendous tools at our disposal like never before. I wonder where all of the usual commentors are. Now is the time to converse.
What about Zionism? Zionism is very interesting to me. For, it is merely the Jewish Equivalent of Nazism. One may as well term it Jewish Nazism.
And, what do I mean by that? One might ask. After all, both the Zionists (the Jewish Nazis) and the German Nazis (the ones usually termed such), believe that there is One Truly Good People, One Truly Evil People, and everyone else, who are merely expendable in the Cosmic Struggle between the One Truly Good People, and the One Truly Evil People. They simply disagree as to who are the One Truly Good People and who are the One Truly Evil People.
Let me put it this way, the Jewish Nazis believe that the Jews are the One Truly Good People (the Chosen People) and that the Germans are the One Truly Evil People (Uniquely Evil); and conversely, the German Nazis believe that the Germans are the One Truly Good People (the Aryans) and the Jews are the One Truly Evil People (the Children of The Devil, aka, the Spawn of Satan). And, that is about it. Nothing good, in my view about either form of Nazism– whether German or Jewish, as the case may be!
Suffice, it is really quite interesting to me that the Israeli Defense Forces have the same attitude towards the Palestinian Arabs that the Nazi SS had to the Polish People, and other Slavic Peoples. This, of course, merely strengthens the analogy considerably. Still, always remember, however one may feel about the Germans, or even their Nazis, the idea of an Aryan Master Race is not all that different than the idea of a Jewish Chosen People. Both are Supremacist beliefs rooted in Religious Superstition! Still, the Aryan Master Race idea originated not so much among the Germans, but rather among the Hindus of the Indian Subcontinent.
Until a couple weeks ago, I would have asked our readers (if there are any readers of this thread any longer), if they saw the ‘New Yorker’ cartoon where the second guy says, “What about Zionism? Zionism is very interesting to me…” Now, I understand, the common joke is to ask someone to try to replace every ‘New Yorker’ cartoon caption with, “Did you hear that Jeffrey Toobin of CNN just pulled his…”
Israel is the Fourth Reich. Nazism, albeit of the Jewish type, lives on there.
Very well, Twin Ruler. But in faithfulness to the spirit of commenting on an article, I–only as another commenter–would ask if you could connect this theme to the original article in some way. Mr. Lind’s article was not one in which he was analyzing, but rather, in reference to his book on Retroculture was offering his recommendations on how we might tend to our form of domestic structures and practices as well as the infrastructure of our local communities. You are diagnosing a phenomenon on a very different scale. Again, either conect your thoughts on the 35,000-foot view to Lind’s forwardly-directed proposals, or, wrie up you own article whhere you deal precisely with the topic you mention. I would like to see your article appear here if the editors accept it. A thirs option, that in no way preculudes the other two, would be to simply discuss Mr. Lind’s article here on its own terms and extend the topic as you see fit regarding revivifying modes of living that animated earlier periods, now.
Well, I do not like the Internet much. It is good I no longer watch television. I would love to live in an old Victorian too.
Of course, in all likelihood, I should not make mention of either Russia or Germany in mixed company, especially in The United States of America. Still, just between you and me, Mr. Schmidt, I firmly suspect that America desired the control of the Shatter Zone of Eastern Europe for themselves. The Shatter Zone, of Eastern Europe, as we all know, is the area between the Russian border and the German border, and all the countries, including Poland, which are in between.
Mind you, when Woodrow Wilson decided to resurrect Poland, he did so at least as much out of hatred for the Russian and German peoples as out of any form of love for the Polish people. And, again, we all know what most Americans’ ulterior motive for that is. Moreover, efforts to obstruct the Nordstrom2 pipeline from Russia to Germany, I would also argue, here, are based upon American hatred of both Russia and Germany. For, such a pipeline would help both immensely.
Conversely, America is NOT a Christian Nation. America is neither Christian nor even a Nation. However Americans may hate either Russia or Germany– for whatever reasons– it is precisely the Russians and Germans, a couple of Nations Americans hate above all others, which really were founded on the Christian Faith. And that is precisely why Russia and Germany have historically speaking been more than a bit anti-Jewish. Indeed, if American Christians really realized just how anti-Jewish Christianity really is, American Christians would leave that faith in droves. With the upsurge in Buddhism, and New Age, I think that is happening.
America was founded on Deism. Now, I may go on to digress a bit about Deism. Deism, indeed, is a Monotheist faith, albeit one that rejects any form of revealed, scriptural religion. Christians and Muslims and Jews, the three “Abrahamic” faiths” all adhere to revealed, scriptural religion in addition to each believing in one God. Of course, Christians and Muslims and Jews each worship one God, but is it truly the same God? I wonder about precisely that. After all, all three faiths– Christianity and Islam and Judaism are at each other’s throats, and have been for centuries.
Now, the Deists, via their Enlightenment mentality, came up with the idea of the Wall of Separation of Church and State. They did this, in their wisdom, precisely because they knew full well that they, as Deists, would always be in the minority. And, more importantly, from The Separation of CHURCH and State came the more radical idea of the Separation of NATION and State. That is, anyone born or naturalized, within the borders of The United States of America, is lawfully a US Citizen, with all the rights, privileges, and protections that come from that. An interesting idea, in theory, but in reality “Americans” (Read: US Citizens) routinely pick on each other due to “Ethnic Background” (Read: ancestral Nation).
Sometimes, though, I think I might be a Deist. Still, I accept Evolution. And, as a Cultural Christian, I do like to celebrate Christmas and Easter and all the other Holidays. How about you, Mr. Schmidt? And as a final note: it would be a real shame if there were any bad feelings, between the Russians and Germans, due to The Second World War; after all, both are thoroughly hated by Americans (though not for the reasons Americans like to think).
After all, the US Military has carried out many, many of the very same types of military atrocities and crimes against Humanity that the US Media, most hypocritically, only associates with Russia and Germany. After all, the US Military, itself, also tends to burn families out of their homes, rape women, murder children, and of course send victims to Prison Camps to be tortured to death in the most creatively vicious ways one can envision. And, of course, I mean not only in Vietnam and Korea, but also in The Good War, the war Americans feel so very patriotic about!
Back to Retroculture! All these Gay Pride Parades, and men dressing up as women to gain access to women’s bathrooms, not to mention the Incels, who in their even more obvious way pray upon women; all this makes me yearn for the day before the Internet. Perhaps, there should not even be Cable TV, or all the rubbish spewed on MTV in particular. Well, anyway, that was my rant. I hope you are doing well, Mr. Schmit. I plan to write a whole book, and hopefully, I could get it published on Arktos!
Twin Ruler, no hard fellings at all. I was simply trying to get get back to the topic of Retroculture—and getting back to things is just what a retroculturist should always be inclined to do, correct? Well, not really, or at least not completely. A Retroculturist in the best sense of the word–I think Mr. Lind would agree–is a forward thinking individual and a creator and innovator. The important thing about cultural practices is not when they occur. Good cultural practices are timeless. What makes a pactice good, though? Good practices protect and foster the healthy and reliable functions of society indefinitely into the future. Good cultural practices are not about short-term pleasures and fads. Such practices are not even about just the next generation, but about the next generation’s next generation—and their next generation without ending. This, good cultural practices are about the reproduction of the species and the education of individuals that will enable them to devote the fulness of their intellects to tha task. Sure, personal development and expression are satisfying and have an important role. But again, it is important to ask one frequently enough, how can I do good things of for people–sarting with MY people–by utilizing my talents well—which turns out to coincide well with what
I enjoy doing. As for the historical things you mention, I have little kowledge or comment at the moment. I like history, I am enjoying reading some history, but I definitely take a seat, shut up and start “taking notes.” I hate neither Germans (notice the last name) nor Russians. The Press-government-“elite” complex certainly does want to try to stir up some hatred. I think we know what that is about. Stopping this international scapegoating will be about defanging the power of the predatory, centralized opinion makers and news-interference mechanisms (the controlled–and controlling–Media). [I hope you see how I am going to try and bring this train home into the station.] So, how do we achieve this kind of New Right? We do it by paying due attention to our local world even while we communicate internationally (as we are doing at the moment) about how we are gaining power in the local world. What is that power to be used for? It is for sustaining our ethno-group identities in geographic places against the assaults of those who hate ethnicity. It is then about how different ethnic groups can communicate and productively exchange trade and ideas for mutual benefit across their regional borders. It is about employing those retrocultural verities that will enable us all to flourish in ways that are unique to our peoples. It is about harnessing science, technology and the humanities, but doing so in ways that are integrated with the past and the present as well as with the other aspects of human intellect and society: history, politics, theology, devotional religious practice, arcitecture—the list is large. So, already I have hinted at something that is a bit at variance with your inclinations. That is, I see the internet as presenting a wonderful opportunity to do so many good things. We can bring ideas into existence (retrocltural, innovative and retrocultural properly integrated with the innovative) and we can dialogue freely from wherever we live. In this latter sense we can do away with the centralizing forces that have had the very deleterious effect of also concentrating wealth and power into the hands of the greedy and those with seemingly little internal check on their tendncies to meddle in ways that turn out to be harmfull of the middle and the lower classes. No, Twin Ruler, I am actually quite optomistic about the potential of the internet once we wrestle it clean from the hands of the self-appointed social-engineering elites. [I am getting sleepy. Merry Christmas, all.]
Well, Schmidt, perhaps you are right and I am wrong. After all, the Internet is a way to vent. I have begun to rethink things in my life. Used to assume that America was all Good, and that Nazi Germany, and Commie Russia to a lesser extent, were all evil. Strange, how paradigms shift, when one does not watch television or movies; when one rather reads.
I know it sounds silly, but what got me fixated on those two Totalitarian Regimes was, of course, Orwell’s classic, “1984”. I even made the error of actually watching the movie, based upon it too. Silly me, I also read JRR Tolkien’s “The Lord of The Rings” too. I liked that book, too. And, I hope you have a Happy New Year!
Dear Twin Ruler, your observation is a keen, profound and–prsonally–a very timely one: “Strange, how paradigms shift, when one does not watch television or movies; when one rather reads.” Last night, I had a conversation with a young lady who, for unbridled emotional reasons, is about throw away what–from appearances–is the most wonderful opportunity to become engaged to a seemingly decent, up-and-coming and heroic fellow. Everything seemed set. Then, there occured some tiny incidentals in two tivial matters that had absolutely nothing to do with their plans. (Misunderstandings arise so often when happenstance causes two or more unfortunate incidences to just happen to go wrong at once—we assume there there was a magical power at work and the the real people in our lives are suddenly-turned, malicious wielders of that power.) The nature of these incidentals were far beyond this young ladies’ would-be fiancé’s control, and it all could have been easily conrrected. But she lost her trust in him. She wanted from him that he not only be merely a good man, but rather a god man. [By the way, I just learned as I am writing you this, that the root meaning of he words ‘financé’ and ‘finaceé’ is, from the Latin word ‘fidere’, “to trust.”] And what poison was offered to this young lady and drafted down in huge gulps? On Christmas Day, the young woman–in her wishful loneliness–watched a Netflix movie: ‘The Christmas Prince’ set in the fictional land of Aldovia. Well, her real life hero and soon-to-be fiancé turned out not to be that all-powerful maker-right and maker-beautiful of all things. (Well, actually he is kind of those things when properly understood, but it takes eyes to see beyond the immediate trivalities and the intermediate trials and labors.) And there was another story of a prince in another–prsumably all-powerful–fantasy land called Camelot. And there was another tiny land that wanted special, nuclear powers and wish fulfillments. And when that story was finished, the small country–sensing the fairy-tale version of their dreams would have to yield to a more realistic course–helped the prince’s enemies murder him, and murder him most savagely bespeaking of the plotters inordinate and disordered rage. I hope President Trump will be the last attempt to marry a man god or a prince for leader. Though prince-like in superficial oppulence of life style, to many–and to their credit–they realized that this was neither the most important (if even at all admirable) thing about Donald Trump, nor were their more sober expectations unchecked. “Just stop the utter madness,” they hoped. But the sacrifices for wisdom by the wise more often brings simply more loss as a gift box with the promise of more wisdom inside. Moreover, if any man dare to be seduced by the power that the unrealistic offer over them, surely he will suffer the correction that some insinuating snake has poured into his glass. Though fairy-tale princes and real-world presidents (an nations) fail, I hope for the young couple, first mentioned, that fantsy will be recognized and quickly put aside, and that–with trust–they can begin the long hard road to a better land.
I wonder. Was America ever meant to be fully White?
Meant by who?
Meant by those who created America in the first place. America is, and was always meant to be, an English Settler Colony. In this respect, it is much like Canada and Australia and New Zealand. That is what the original settlers of the North American Continent, originally intended for it to be.