Appealing to the common swine?! Are you insane? Or, better yet, are you some sort of knee-bending poofter content to get a bad taste in your mouth if it means better sounds in your ears?
I’m mostly responding to this – not to be critical or nasty, I’m poking fun with a smile – which I found to be a thought-provoking little segment in a few ways. Firstly, welcome Lawrence John to WCR, he’s a top lad; secondly, White Man Marches are a proletarian manifestation of tribal racism channelled as a contrarian reaction regarding privilege theory and identity politics; thirdly, it was all the Jews; lastly, making elitist, psycho-spiritual, hierarchical philosophy-turned-politics accessible to the masses is not only difficult, I’d say it isn’t actually do-able at this point.
This point has been made by me at many other times in many different ways: the alternative Right and all its various branches is not one solid, stable mass. This is a strength as well as a weakness. Oh, dear reader(s); but this is the tip of the old ‘berg. Let me indulge in some messy mind-spewing…
What is the alternative Right? What are the problems with contemporary Western society? How could these problems be solved? Should these problems be solved? Can these problems be solved? Who will solve these problems? When will those people solve these problems? Where do these people come from? Does it matter? Why shouldn’t I become a hermit? Why shouldn’t I fight to actively change external society? How esoteric do we go? Nationalism or Traditionalism? Metaphysical subjectivism, or metaphysical objectivism? Does metaphysics even exist? What does metaphysics have to do with saving the white race? What does race have to do with it? Why is it always those fucking hook-nosed bastards? Fucking eagles.
And so on. Now, depending on where you are in the alternative Right, your answer/response to each question will be different. This much is already known, but it is important and the differences between people in these spheres must be kept firmly in mind.
Traditionalism (with a capital “T”) is essentially a worldview which emulates a continuous process of transcendent Becoming within a given civilization. That is to say that literally everything in the society is aimed “upwards” and is looking towards the invisible metaphysical realm of Being. Hence, for example, the caste system is present in some shape or another in all Traditional civilizations; the society is arranged in a pyramid where each ascending place is closer to the divine than the one below it. One cannot have a Traditional society in this sense without placing huge importance on spirituality and the invisible metaphysical dimension, because those realms are what physical reality is but a mirroring; a manifestation; of. As above, so below; physical, material space is the earthly, “lowly” echoing of the “higher” space of metaphysical timelessness and divinity. The society essentially becomes a physical, mortal representation of the principle of Becoming which in turn strives upwards towards Being. There is a Hermetic element which looms out of such a style of civilization, and obviously goes hand-in-hand with how “deep” such a view is in comparison to the hedonist-via-consumerist-via-materialist civilization we in the West are presently suffering from.
How is this in anyway important in the minds of the people involved in any White Man March? I’m not just asking Lawrence this, but anyone who calls himself a “Traditionalist” and genuinely believes this worldview to be possibly made accessible to anyone but the oddballs and wierdos among the society. If one is active and encourages the sort of “action” represented in a White Man March or even an American Renaissance convention if one is so inclined, then one needs to suddenly adopt a more populist/mass-appealing element as one suddenly attaches oneself to a cause which has aims and goals, and the support of others is necessary in realizing said aims and goals. Political parties such as the British National Party, Liberty GB, Jobbik, Le Front National, et cetera, are participating in the squalid orgy of mass-centricity and thus cannot hope to enter anything spiritually and philosophically Traditional which draws legitimacy from Monarchy and/or philosopher kings, as they’re – in their very essence – counter-propositional to Traditionalism. (In any case, those organizations don’t even claim to be Traditional, but nationalistic/patriotic/counter-progressive/et cetera, and there is a reason for that.)
Traditionalism is never artificial; it is never planned, forced or constructed. It cannot be in any sense as it encompasses literally everything in a given group. For such a system to be implemented in the modern West, the slate would need to be absolutely wiped clean. Mass entertainment would go; mass media would go; mass information would go; healthcare would go; mass education would go; public schooling would go; Hollywood, Broadway and the West End would go; much of our present technology would go; everything representing modern moral codes, ethics, ways of thinking, modes of logic, et cetera would go. Traditionalism is the articulated starting point of a given society where there is spiritual balance, thereafter, however, it deteriorates as we’ve seen via observable history as well as ancient texts speaking of the cycles of the Four Ages. Tradition in this sense can occur again, and I believe it will in various forms, when the present cycle ends.
If one is to adopt action from a Traditionalist standpoint, it can only be in an elitist, non-mass-orientated manner which shocks and attacks and essentially draws its energy from a fixed reference point of self-understanding (rooted in a connection to/embodiment of Traditionalism and its consequences) and thus rises above and beyond the now and the temporal.
To actually fight back physically and in consideration of anyone but oneself, politics is the answer. But I’ve made this point before; Traditionalism is not simply politics. It has that angle, to a degree, but it is first a spiritual and philosophical understanding of reality, which then manifests via social organization and the decree of people with power.
Groups such as National Alliance, National Action, the EDL (to a lesser degree), et cetera, are an expected occurrence. They largely draw from tribal racism – which isn’t some worthless idiocy – that serves as a kind of socialism. Here we see the conundrum trying to tie Traditionalism with such an attitude. Traditionalism is spiritual hierarchism; racial (in the sense of biological reductionism) tribalism is clearly rather detached from it. But this conversation is only important to a very few people, in any case. The majority of people who are against progressive liberalism (what I call “the forces in motion”) are not Traditionalist. They’re typically nationalists, conservatives, patriots, and ordinary people who cannot understand why their leaders have betrayed them and turned their lands into something alien.
These are the people involved in White Man Marches; who attend BNP, Liberty GB and, to a much lesser extent, UKIP meetings; who read the Daily Mail or the Spectator; whose parents voted Conservative or BNP, or Labour even though Labour have destroyed their town or city; who don’t want foreigners in their lands; et cetera. These people are on our side. The alternative Right, with all its intellectualism and pontification and academic leanings, is inevitably on the side of these people.
Your average prole cannot appreciate or understand much intellectualism (the consequences of which are explained here) but this is not to say they do not deserve an explanation for what has happened beyond “blacks, Jews and politicians.” Ignorance is being fuelled by political correctness, economic worries and a sort of sneering attitude mainstream academics have towards the average man.
The alternative Right can bring light to the darkness, not only for fellow intellectuals, but to ordinary folk who don’t have a clue how their countries can be saved. Let’s not confuse ourselves, however, we must distinguish between the brighter and duller; the intelligent and the unintelligent. We must consider the divide between the esoteric and the exoteric. The trouble we presently have in regards to any “action” is that we can only focus on the former. Focussing on the latter means repackaging an anti-masses ideology for the masses, and “getting the word out” that not all intellectuals are idiots.