Prologue
I have observed (as have the majority of those who will read my essay, I have no doubt) the crisis which our culture (that of Western man) faces today. Having hoped to familiarize myself with solutions and those who propose them, I have undertaken a broad reading of many writers (both well-known and obscure) on the Right who I have seen propose radically different solutions and courses of action to either mend our culture or else end it and recreate it. In writing this article I intend to first present my thoughts on the best course of action for Western man and then to further examine this course of action and the possibilities it affords.
The Choices We Face
There is another perception of history and its course, however, that (broadly speaking) of Spengler. He and scholars of his ilk have profoundly influenced the thinking of the Right with regard to the perception that history is not cyclical, but is in fact terminal (from the perspective of a given culture). He goes as far as to say that “optimism is cowardice” (Spengler, 1931). While I give all due respect to the great mind of Spengler, I must disagree.
As time continues, we see exacerbation and intensification of the symptoms of decadence that have long been noted. We see that, for all their foresight and understanding, the leaders of the Right who put their thoughts on paper in the early 20th century were actually optimistic in a sense, in that they believed society to be already teetering on the edge due to the changes in their own time. They had little idea of just how far society could bend under the weight of modernity’s sins. Mein Kampf tells us that “[i]f we study the course of our cultural life1 during the last twenty-five years, we shall be astonished to note how far we have already gone in this process of retrogression” (Hitler, 1925). In the essay The Doctrine of Fascism, we hear, “[o]ne may now think that this will be the century of authority, the century of the ‘right wing,’ the century of Fascism” (Mussolini, 1932). While correctly diagnosing many of the problems facing Italian society during his day, Mussolini could not have had any idea of just what deep depths society would fall to before reaching any sort of breaking point. It is also worth mentioning that we, today, have yet to see this breaking point ourselves.
That is not to say that it will not happen in our time. There are so many indications of impending societal collapse that even leftists have found it convenient in the past several decades to take on a doomsday-like message to propagate their beliefs. What we are witnessing is perhaps the end of the last great empire (that of America) before the dawn of a completely new age. As members of the Right, we have nothing to fear from the end of this cycle, as it goes without saying that in the wake of societal collapse traditional values will be completely indispensable to the rebuilding and recreation of any sort of functioning society. It also remains to be seen whether the impending crisis will actually entail a total collapse of society or instead consist of a “reset2” of sorts. What to do in the meantime is therefore the greatest decision we are faced with. There can be three broadly generalized approaches for the Western man; first, that of evangelizing and converting new minds to our cause in an attempt to slow down (I do not say stave off, as I believe most of us can agree that eventual societal crisis is inevitable) further decay and/or to better position ourselves with regard to retaking our society, second, that of isolation and separation from the currents of the modern world (or at least to ignore them to the best of one’s ability), and third that of accelerationism. Two of these paths of action I will classify as active resistance (that of accelerationism and that of proselytization), and the other I will classify as passive resistance (that of isolationism).
I will use the example of an investment to help the reader better understand the differences between these three forms. In doing so, I must make it clear that I do not necessarily differentiate them in their appearance (which I judge the reader to be able to assess easily enough) but in the level of personal risk that each affords to its practitioner and also in the amount of potential payoff at their conclusion. After giving this example, I will describe each individual form further and in more detail.
First, imagine a high-risk stock sold to you by some snake oil salesman. This stock may grow explosively and excitingly at first, and will seem to have great value to you as the buyer. It is inevitable, however, that the price will come crashing down and almost certainly bottom out at a lower price than what you paid for it. If you are invested deeply enough in this particular stock, it will ruin you completely and leave you with nothing to show for your pains. This is accelerationism.
Second, picture a slow growth and very safe investment. This form will almost certainly pay off in the end, though only to very little profit. Its safety may give you ease and peace of mind, but you will have only slightly more benefit at the payout of your investment than did the first man. This is isolationism.
Now imagine a middle path. Your investment is one that takes some sort of middle-of-the-road path to long-term profit. You risk more than the second man, and may see times of trouble and short-term loss during your life. You are, however, far safer than the first man and can expect to have a handsome profit toward the end of your life thanks to your willingness to take acceptable (I do not say “any,” however) risks, and also thanks to your wisdom and presence of mind which have kept your investment safe. This is proselytization.
Consider now the types:
Accelerationism:
Accelerationism is an obviously active form of resistance. I will not speak in support of accelerationism as a path of action, in large part because I do not believe in it myself and also in part because no good can come to those who advocate for it. While accelerationism may have theoretical appeal on a certain level (the same appeal as ripping a bandage off quickly rather than bit by bit), the only possible end for anyone who truly practices any form of this doctrine is to find themselves dead or in a federal prison cell. This is not the way. Whether one believes in a short-term or long-term time frame for the falling and rebuilding of society, it is obvious that the greater the number of right-thinking minds available for the rebuilding, the better. One cannot build a family from a grave. One cannot speak to readily influenced minds from prison (and to those who disagree with this last point, weigh carefully whether the average sort of minds currently incarcerated would truly be of benefit to our movement). The flashy curb appeal of accelerationism quickly fades when its inevitable consequences come crashing down.
Isolationism:
Isolation is the primary form of passive resistance available to us. In support of isolationism, I say this: it is the safest and most sound option for each individual. It is also the most protective toward each man’s own mind, in that in isolation he can become an echo chamber unto himself (I mean this in a positive way; if a man knows his beliefs to be true, then he has nothing to fear from giving himself completely up to them) and free from the tides of the world. There is a subtype of this man, that of the man who, to quote the oft-mentioned Christian phrase, is “in the world but not of it.” This is also the man of whom Evola speaks when he describes a “man who finds himself involved in today’s world… yet he does not belong inwardly to such a world, nor will he give in to it” (Evola, 1961). This is the so-called aristocrat of the soul.
Proselytization:
In writing of proselytization (the second form of active resistance), I wish now to make it clear and apparent that this is the form which I support personally, lest my reader think I am attempting to hide my bias. I find this path to be the correct and most valuable one to our movement (that of the Right or the defenders of Western culture in general), and the remainder of this essay will be concerned with its practical enactment. Proselytization is also the form which I assume a significant portion of my readers will support to one degree or another. This form further supports the broadest base of end goals, whether the practitioner takes society’s death as an inevitability, seeks reform, or pursues revolution.
Why Conversion is Key:
We see the same symptoms present in society today that our forefathers saw in the early decades of the 20th century, only we see them much more nakedly and blatantly evident with the benefit of almost 100 years of time gone by. Social decay, economic trouble, and the usurpation of our culture’s traditional values are all signs of the times.
It is not self-evident that societal collapse must mean the end of all Western culture as we know it. It is also not self-evident that societal collapse will see the end of all political currents in which we partake today. Though I have said myself earlier in this work that I believe a form of final crisis is inevitable, it remains to be seen what form this crisis will take and what totality of destruction it will entail. Further, it is likely that it will be through these same modern political movements that any hope for rebirth can take shape. Total breakdown and cessation of the world as we know it is not unavoidable, and it may be hoped that a sort of “reset” will occur instead of a final and formal end to the West. This is certainly an idea which we can find present in the literature of the Right. In The Doctrine of Fascism Mussolini says that “[i]f every century has its own peculiar doctrine, there are a thousand indications that Fascism is that of the present century” (Mussolini, 1932). Though when I quoted him previously it was to show that he was mistaken about the specific timing of societal change, this does not necessarily mean that he was wrong in his analysis of societal symptoms and the changes which they indicated. “Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can,” so says Ted Kaczynski (Kaczynski, 1995). This certainly implies a certain level of optimism about the future, and the possibility of change in the correct direction. The men of today’s Right must bear this optimism in their hearts at all times, rejecting nihilism, defeatism, and any doctrine which preaches despair.
Today’s generation of youth cry out for a leader, a cause, and a purpose. In many ways, parallels can be drawn between Generation Z and the Greatest Generation. Both generations seek or sought something to live for, something larger and greater than themselves. The unfortunate reality of the boomer generation and Generation X is that they sought their own purpose in the lies and false hopes of free love, substance abuse, and rootlessness, all of which point to their ultimate hope in license and autonomy as gods. Generation Z has not yet fully committed to their future. This threshold remains uncrossed as of yet. Much has been made of recent studies and polls which indicate a significantly widening gap between the increasing conservatism of young men and the increasing liberalism of young women. While there is a negative tendency to focus on the downward trend of conservatism among young women, it is precisely the greater conservatism of young men which affords us an advantage denied to the Right of the past few decades.
Democracy, liberty, and freedom are almost unanimous bywords of Western culture. Any attempt to secure the youth must bear this in mind. People’s frantic grasping for these principles makes a certain amount of sense. God has been stripped from them, family and culture too. All forms of higher purpose and meaning evaporated in the harsh light of modernity, leaving little in their wake. Consider trends like the 1990s and early 2000s’ proliferation of belief in “intelligent design.”3 Much was made of this movement and its obvious links (despite the best attempts to deny them) to Christianity, with some seeing it as a sort of cop-out which would allow one to recover belief in a higher power without having the inconvenience of having to live by religious morals. People want to believe in something, and they need a foundation to live atop of.
Our movement (call it the Right, conservatism, tradition, or what you will) is the only link between modern man and higher belief. The principle of democracy, and even more crucially that of individuality, has failed. Man in a state of nature is man in a society, something to be a part of. Democracy makes every man a force unto himself, denying him any semblance of value through participation in his culture or his people. We know this principle to be false. We take pride and derive purpose in our membership in something greater than ourselves. This pride and sense of purpose are precisely what must be shown to others to win them over. José Antonio Primo de Rivera says that “[m]an must be free, but freedom does not exist except within an order” (Primo de Rivera, 1935). In acknowledging our position within American society (which believes strongly and deeply in freedom and liberty) and also holding firmly to our belief that license and licentiousness are the source of moral decay, we must make a concerted effort to help would-be proselytes understand the relationship that must exist between structure and freedom and the way in which these two concepts complement rather than contradict each other.
The Age Gap
It is also possible that some (particularly older individuals) on the Right will be indifferent to any attempt to preach truths to younger generations. This is an unfortunate fact and very detrimental to our cause. To assume that the youth are permanently beyond our reach is to assume defeat and must not be tolerated.
Saul Alinsky predicted in the 1970s that “[a] major revolution to be won in the immediate future is the dissipation of man’s illusion that his own welfare can be separate from that of all others” (Alinsky, 1971). Young people have already begun to grapple with the emptiness entailed by modern-day individualistic existence and seek a remedy. It is important to understand that in any and every generation, the youth are key to change. It has become a stereotype for any given time period’s older generations to devalue and dismiss their younger counterparts and in particular for right-wing movements to more or less tacitly accept the widespread liberalism of young people (especially true in the relationship between the Millennials and generations who preceded them, which have essentially written them off as being too far gone to be worth any effort at conversion). It must be borne in mind that many great right-wing causes have been borne aloft by the youth of their day. In the tumultuous decades of the 1920s and 1930s, several European nations’ nationalist movements were spearheaded by the youth.
It is almost a truism to state that the values of the current Millennial generation are different than those of their parents and grandparents. Interestingly, certain aspects of Millennial and Generation Z morality line up quite well with those of the nationalist and fascist movements that would be all too happy to recruit them. Younger people are team-oriented and have a desire to be part of something larger than themselves and which they can contribute to. They also center their lives around values and ethical convictions, rather than the capitalistic monetary and financial considerations seen as paramount by their elders. It is to these traits that we must appeal in proselytization. The young mind is an impressionable mind. Its assumptions and views about the world around it are still formable and pliable, in particular to those with a concrete and solid grasp of what the lost psyche seeks as it gazes around itself in search of higher meaning.
There are numerous organizations, old and new, which exist for the purpose of comradery, propaganda, and activism. Some have sprung up within the past decade alone, indicating the increased need for such groups among our people. In my experience, it is often the newer movements with membership consisting largely of young men which are the most active and effective in our communities. An excellent opportunity exists in the possibility of cooperation between older, more well-known and formal organizations with their younger, more active and industrious counterparts. The elders among our cause are often well-versed in the literature and doctrine of our heroes and leading figures, while the young among us are enthusiastic and eager to engage in “boots on the ground” activism and promotion of our cause, including the winning of new minds. This is an excellent meeting point between generations which should be capitalized upon.
Practical Considerations
Speaking from practical experience, I can attest that the first of these two key ideas is fairly well understood and practiced by the younger members of the Right while being completely ignored or unknown to older members of our movement. It is a cliché that young people have short attention spans or that the internet has made information so readily accessible that people no longer have the patience to dive deeply into a topic, preferring rather a shallow surface knowledge of it. For better or worse, this must be acknowledged and accepted if we wish to succeed in communication. Again, young members of the Right seem to understand this and practice it well. Many of us will be able to recall the election year of 2016, and the common perception that a sort of phenomenon had occurred in elements of the Right “memeing” a president into the Oval Office. Whether or not this is true on a factual level, there was certainly a groundswell of enthusiasm among young members of the Right, visible in their enormous output of political material online and made possible by the widespread use of modern means (i.e., technology) to connect with others of shared opinion. It should go without saying that clarity is key for this purpose. I remember not too long ago reading an opinion shared online by another member of our movement (whose name I cannot remember, or I would happily cite them directly as a reference) that right-wing memes employ shorter amounts of text than do those of the Left, in part because the messages spread by the Right are subconsciously known to be true by people and require less explanation or convincing than do those of the Left.
As I said before, this idea of simplicity is poorly understood by older members of the Right. In all things, older people tend to pontificate extensively. Since I’ve given a related example of young people effectively communicating in the style that is common today, let me give an instance of what is common among older people and a mindset that will absolutely not work in modern communication. An example that comes to mind and will no doubt be relatable to many of my young comrades are the t-shirts common among baby boomer men which display a wall of text which the wearer relates to. Commonly these shirts will say something to the effect of “I was born in a certain month of a certain year, I display such and such masculine personality trait, and you’d better not mess with me.” A silly example perhaps, but one that effectively demonstrates the divide between generations. Older people understand communication as comprehensiveness, younger people understand it as clarity.
Now, conversion is rarely as simple as a swing of the pendulum. Exposure is key as is patience. I have no doubt that some who will read this essay are like me, possessing bookshelves of material by numerous authors supporting our cause and taking pleasure in diving deeply into the details of doctrine. There are relatively few like us, however, and we cannot make the mistake of assuming that others will have a desire to do the same. Instead we must be like lightning rods, which take the full force of a bolt of lightning and disperse it into the ground. Likewise we will take the full force of our message and disseminate smaller amounts of it into receptive minds.
Despite my emphasis on brevity and clarity, a certain amount of displayed intelligence and sophistication is very helpful in many scenarios. Young people today are more educated, more skeptical, and less credulous than their parents, and they must be approached as such. This is a problem for many on the Right, whose attempts at communication seem almost to pander to individuals of low intelligence. Compare a book like those of Evola to one like those of Rockwell. Both men are major figures for the Right, and each could not possibly be more different than the other in terms of style and form. As I have said, clarity is key, and Rockwell certainly writes in a clear and readily understood style. Yet of the two he is by far the worse to use in an attempt to influence a person, largely because Rockwell comes across as vulgar and an idiot. Evola by contrast writes in a complex and often confusing manner, but is far less “abrupt” of an author to introduce to someone. Evola’s ideas may be far to the right, but they are presented in such a way as to make them far more palatable to a person wavering on the fence of the political spectrum. Make sure to keep the core of your message simple while not insulting your audience’s intelligence.
As for meeting your audience where they already are, this is easily done in a variety of ways depending on who exactly you intend to speak to. As mentioned before, the most open and moldable minds are those of the youth. Aside from the inexhaustible number of locations available on the internet, the best places to go are colleges and universities. While the Left maintains a tight grip on the official channels of communication at these places, there is still enough respect for freedom of speech to allow for excellent proselytization efforts on the campus. Opportunities which should be seized are either small group meetings or (even better) one-on-one settings.
Within small group situations it is important to exercise restraint. Whatever your label (I have intentionally written this essay to be applicable to all portions of the Right), groups of people will not react positively to a person identifying himself as a Nazi, a fascist, a nationalist, or any other such term. More people will be able to hear your opinions in such a setting as this than in a one-on-one conversation, but you must also be far more guarded in your speech. Rather than making your views known explicitly and standing out, use this opportunity to gain the respect and friendship of those around you while simultaneously voicing your opinion on issues in a way that will influence others without repelling them. It is helpful to use references that are well-respected and transition conveniently into our beliefs. For example, in a discussion about philosophy one could use the ideas expressed in Plato’s Republic, which is an enormously popular book and also overlaps with much that we could hope to convince others of on a philosophical level.
In a conversation with only one other person, however, one can be far more open and upfront about political beliefs. One also has the advantage of being able to cater the conversation specifically to whatever level of interest or receptiveness the lone audience member has. Tact is still important here, however, bearing in mind that the vast majority of people will not react well to outspoken and outright declarations of our beliefs without caveat or context. They must be guided step by step into understanding why exactly those doctrines which they have heard most vilified all their lives are in fact true.
Conclusion
Finally, I urge my brothers to hope. Hope is the foundation for all action, and without at least a grain of hope one will not truly believe in the validity of his actions. Take heart in your own strength and resolve, and take heart in the courage and commitment of your comrades.
Our cause is not lost.
References
The Doctrine of Fascism. Mussolini, Benito. 1932.
Industrial Society and Its Future. Kaczynski, Theodore. 1995.
Ride the Tiger. Evola, Julius. 1961.
Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life. Spengler, Oswald. 1931.
Mein Kampf. Hitler, Adolf. 1925.
Rules for Radicals. Alinsky, Saul. 1971.
Spain and Barbarism. Primo de Rivera, Jose Antonio. 1935.
Footnotes
The cultural life is understood to be specific to Germany in this case.
Obviously, the use of the word “reset” here is to be understood as distinct and different from the most common use of that particular word in our society at the moment, that of the so-called “Great Reset.”
Intelligent design is to be understood in this context as the creation or designing of mankind by some sentient entity which is not God.
It’s was an interesting read, some points were very well-put, but other things written were assuming and confabulatory. I don’t agree people should “be careful” in proselytizing in small groups at all. The biggest problem the right-wing does is concede all of the underlying rules of conduct to the left-wing and argue within that framework. The way you win persuasion is by making the opponent sell to you. People should be bold and recapture momentum over the conversation. THEY sbould “exercise restraint” so as not to offend our morals, not the other way around. We should be the ones challenging them for their moral blindspots, such as their cause of the crime and destruction of all big cities, and we shall fill the gap in their lack of answers. Stop being scared to offend their baseless morals.
I’m also in the proselytizing camp as well. Each of the words like fascist, Nazi, nationalist has served its purpose. Most are loaded terms conflated with capitalist, or only were relevant in the context of specific nations. What we should be focused on is labels like “Zionism”, that is the belief that:
1. The Jews are God’s chosen people.
2. All other peoples are merely two-legged animals (goys).
3. The Jews have both the right and the obligation to rule the world.
This can be in the capitalist/nationalist/fascist sense like in Israel with Netanyahu, or in the marxist/anti-nationalist/Bolshevik sense like with George Soros. It’s simply a change in political strategy that both defend the supremacy of the Jewish people, which wavers depending on if they are the majority or the minority of a nation.
Our baseline instead should be our own form of Zionism but for Western people, so as to not allow our culture or politics to become kidnapped by foreigners in yielding to xenophilia. I don’t know what label you could use for this, something like Euroism but perhaps more catchy.
When engaging in converting leftists, we should be far from “careful”. Instead of letting them bully us into submission with accusations, we should kick over the tables, recapture the momentum and accuse them instead. Pressure their hypocrisy as to why they demand immigration to the West but not elsewhere. When they justify the hypocrisy because of colonization, etc, point to other non-Westeners who have done the same yet don’t hold the same expectation. Expose their unique hatred and contempt for us, and challenge it boldly. In this sense we aren’t self-labelling or posturing as a fascist, but we are almost applying Marxist subversion and accusation to Marxists themselves. Playing into their game and engaging in defense or playing coy just implicitly submits to their rules.
Politics is not the foundation of morality, it’s only a tool of applying it. I don’t think anyone on the right understands this. They inherently see how degraded and under attack the West is culturally and politically, but they treat right wing ideas as gospel. In their bubbles they fail to see how much ground their pro-Western peers have made by applying the Marxist approach kidnapped in our favor. Approaching anti-Western people with Marxist subversion and accusations from a pro-Western stance trips them up. They are completely unaware of how to react. White supremacist? Jewish supremacist, black supremacist. Feminism? Masculinism. The left is the one with predominant cultural hegemony for a near century, after all. THEY are the ones that should tread lightly to us after everything they’ve destroyed and stolen. If the left doesn’t have to answer for the Bolshevik genocide of 7 million Russian Christians, or the internment camps of Uigurs, then the right doesnt have to answer for the Holocaust of internment camps of others. This is how absurd the expectation disparity is; they don’t even have to answer for their ideas being casual to genocide.
I also think more important than clinging to any right ideology is studying metapolitics and culture throughout ancient Western history. The relationship between Zionism and the West doing the Middle Ages, and the values of that time. I recommend reading “The Nature of Zionism” by Vladimir Stepin for a history lesson. I don’t consider myself a Nazi or a fascist, we need a phrase that means something new.