Oftentimes one observes this sort of flailing whereby people involved in “Right-wing,” “illiberal,” “nationalist,” “traditional,” et cetera spheres are quick to jump to pointing fingers. In fact, it is the norm; that “So and so is a problem group, and if we only got rid of them, then we would be free from our problems.” This position in almost every case is laughable and stems from a sort of feminine instinct to blame externality in every single case for one’s problems.
This notion that the problem is not oneself or one’s group, or that even those problems have been imposed onto oneself or one’s group by another force and this change is moreorless irreversible, stems from the lack of inner unity apparent in the vast, vast majority of moderns irrespective of their individual opinions on politics and other social affairs. This immediate desire to point fingers outwards for the ills in the life of the person or the group stems from the slave morality which permeates any materialistic social order, where the basis of all reason and thought is “the next step” a la that which is beyond the self and the moment, divorced from principle, and married to consequence; as Cato Disapproves explained, the singular mantra of modernity reads as — simply-put — “I can do anything I want, and it is only wrong if it ‘hurts’ someone else.” The crux of action and thought, of conduct, is therefore only dependent upon external stimuli: it is not something inborn or prior to the act.
This is the underlying idea which facilitates the quick motion of too many to point fingers to various problem groups. Not to say that various groups are not in and of themselves problematic from the perspective of the modern Western, but that they only are as such if they are allowed to be. Islam would not be a threat if Christianity had not collapsed; Marxism would not be a threat if liberalism tolerated its thinktanks and publications; capitalism would not be this gargantuan vampire if politicians had put their nations first instead of their pockets; feminism would not be a indoctrinating cult if families stayed together and women were taught proper conduct from birth; and so on and so forth. It is not external, alien strength which is the problem, it is internal formlessness and weakness which allows it to be so. Thus, we meet our enemy face-to-face.
I teach to you the Overman. The Human is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome it? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves: and you want to be the ebb of this great tide, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome the human? ~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathusra
That what we are observing has been prophesied in the Vedas and elsewhere means little due to the notion of “agents of change” reigning supreme over “agents for change.” Only conscious, realised, actualised motion can “fix” anything, and that can only start with the individual — indeed it must without question.
Only one with a sturdy interior will come to genuinely understand the present scenario which infects more than mere matter. The low and following constantly search to blame what they follow. The same is not said for the otherwise. Caste must be taken into consideration here for not all men are equal nor are they capable of being; the lower man in the traditional sense, the plebeian, is literally a beast belonging to the same category as animals — in fact enslavement would be a gift bestowed upon him insomuch as an endowment of purpose in his life beyond feeding and fornication. Place in hierarchy with a leader to follow and obey. However, in our present circumstance such leaders have betrayed their station and purpose — as was destined — and the only answer to this is to replace them, is to rise above the mass of worthless drones and be not like them (a point I have repeated in so many fashions that it is almost boring by this point — almost).
The enemy is the bourgeois mentality. The complacent mentality. The materialistic mentality. The utilitarian mentality. That which is far from principle in the truest sense of the word and permeates all institutions of the day. The starting point for action should not be some externality but the internal which is aligned with a higher, anterior law which comes from above the individual who assimilates it; he who opens himself up to this instead of simulating the experience: allegorically we might say this the difference between he who would consume a glass of water and he who would merely carry an empty glass along.
… once morality has lost its root, which is the original and effective relationship of man with a higher world, it ceases to have any invulnerable foundation, and the critics soon have the better of it. In “autonomous morality,” which is secular and rational, the only resistance to any natural impulse is an empty and rigid command, a “thou shalt” that is a mere echo of the ancient, living law. Then at the point where one tries to give this “thou shalt” some firm content and to justify that content, the ground gives way. There is no support for those capable of thinking it through to the end. … In reality, there is no “imperative” at this stage that does not imply the presumed, axiomatic value of a certain unexplained premises that depend simply on a personal equation or on the accepted state of affairs in a given society. ~ Julius Evola, Ride the Tiger