Let me start-off by saying that this is not a personal attack against anyone, nor is it some attempt to “shame” people, though I do think that will be an inevitable and earned consequence.
There seems to be, amid a select few in the online Right, this notion of “optional principle.” That is, one has views which are espoused, shared, discussed, contemplated, et cetera, but not actually followed through in one’s actions. This is especially the case in regards to having relationships with people who are not of one’s own racial kin, sexual deviancy, promiscuousness, drug-use, and so forth. These acts are evil, with very, very few exceptions.
On the whole, people are aware of the plight of the contemporary European or Western man. Our civilisation is crumbling, and among the signs are chronically low birth-rates, low marriage-rates, infertility, depleting social trust, and so on. White men have never been in as weak a position as they currently are biologically and especially psycho-spiritually. The contemporary zeitgeist espouses tolerance, inclusiveness, passiveness and so forth as the highest values a man can uphold; to be moved, not to move; to be told, not to tell; to be restrained, not to restrain; to be attacked, not to attack; and so on. To act is seen always as a transgression, as an oppressive action which seeks to implicitly suppress the “rights” of other individuals or groups, or to inflame — or even spark — tensions which the established orthodoxy is aware of, but morally incapable of solving (for the best example of this recently, see the German government’s reaction to the infamous Cologne incidents). One is swamped and drowned by the postwar “liberation,” which itself turns back upon itself in order to establish ideological purity and further the status quo and the desires of the establishment.
Living within this system obviously effects each and every one of us, and it takes a great deal of time, patience and effort to decondition or deprogram oneself of liberal, laissez-faire thinking. One must actively uproot oneself from the moral and emotional fluff of the postmodern world in order to seek something more substantial, more valuable and more truthful. One has to actually impose rules upon oneself in the truest sense; rules which stand beyond the fluctuating tastes of the bourgie and the pathetic opinions of the day-to-day mass media. One has to reprinciple oneself in order to actually free oneself; to quote Julius Evola‘s Ride the Tiger:
Man, at a given moment, wanted to be “free.” He was allowed to be so, and he was allowed to throw off the chains that did not bind him so much as sustain him. Thereupon he was allowed to suffer all the consequences of his liberation, following ineluctably up to his present state in which “God is dead” … and existence is allowed.
The fact that the internet is a huge thing now, which, like the general culture, has its impressing facets, must be realised and not overlooked. The internet acts as a simulation for the most part, or it facilitates what could be termed “shallow contemplation” instead of genuine contemplation or genuine action. One reads, talks, et cetera, but typically about, not of, oneself — or, more accurately, one’s actions and real self are a separate entity from one’s virtual presence, one’s intended self or simulated, perhaps “ideal,” self.
This reminds me of one of the reasons why Andrew Martyanov dropped his pseudonym; anonymity encourages a sharp contrast between one’s online and offline self. Of course there are legitimate reasons why one would use a pseudonym on the internet, especially when engaged with thought-criminality, but that argument stems from externality — what other people think — not internality or one’s own individual character; virtue.
Heavy and often use of the internet is of course merely consequential of our modern living. No other technology has so quickly and so absolutely changed the way in which people live since maybe the invention of the printing press or the automobile. Yet, in my opinion, this follows the natural trajectory of our age; the rise of the virtual only exasperates the nihilism which has plagued us for much longer than Apple or Microsoft have. And this, in turn, further facilitates immoral behaviour; slavery to one’s vices and shortcomings.
Surely, then, the first step towards a bettering of things is an active and conscious avoidance of immoral behaviour? To know of its origins, its signs and its meaning, but then to go further still and subdue it? I cannot take seriously the man who preaches one thing and does another, and while it is true that we all have our vices — we are but mere mortals — hypocrisy in this sense is never necessary.
I appreciate the fact that most of the young men involved with these spheres have barely known order, inner unity or virtue, and have been denied these things for their entire lives, thus developing habits of a good nature may be difficult, but there is no reason to try. Simulation must become actualisation. Enough of playing pretend.