As the rising tide of color threatens to sweep away the foundations of Europe, the question arises how did things come to this? Why have the political, religious, and cultural elites of Western Europe and the United States decided in favor of policies which will reduce their native populations to a minority in their own homelands?
Commonly attributed causes include desire for cheap labor, moral posturing, status whoring, and self loathing; while these factors certainly play a role, they are effects rather than causes. If we are to change the direction of the culture to a non-suicidal one, we must have a firm grasp as to the root cause, we must combat the disease rather than merely treat the symptoms. The White race has been psychologically and morally disarmed, our dominant religious, ideological, and political systems actively seek to prevent us from conceiving of ourselves as being distinct and having our own interests apart from other racial groups. Europe willingly embraces a suicidal course because the religious and philosophical systems that shape its moral compass are egalitarian and universalist in nature. Taking actions to preserve one’s race, culture, or civilization are morally suspect in a culture that believes that all men, races, and cultures are “created equal” and have the same nature.
In order to combat the systems of thought that morally disarm us, and construct new systems of thought and values that are life affirming for our people, we must understand the foundation upon which every worldview rests. Religion, philosophy, and ideology rest upon a foundation of myth. Myth is the lifeblood of a system of thought, it is the soil in which in grows; without the foundation of myth, a system of thought is sterile.
Before going further, it would be useful to define what a “myth” really is. In common parlance, “myth” is used to connote something false, or brings to mind quaint fables that are of value only for entertainment. This is a superficial view, myth, to quote Jonathan Bowden is
the commingling of emotional reality with what is understood to be fact. It is noumenal truth, as Aristotle said 2000 years ago, the idea that certain things are artistically and emotionally true irrespective of what you think of them factually.
Myth is more than the attempts of pre-scientific man to understand his world, and certainly more than entertaining bedtime stories. Myth communicates at a subconscious, emotional level through the use of allegory, symbolism, poetic imagery, and metaphor. Myth is the portrayal of human nature in allegorical form. It resonates because the gods, goddesses, heroes, and creatures depicted are representations of various drives and facets of human nature; they are archetypes that embody all facets of the human condition. These archetypes are the noble and base parts of human nature made flesh, condensed into the figure of the mythic hero, the god, or the monster.
Rather than communicating his values through an abstract system of ethics, which could reach only the proverbial “one percent” of humanity capable of understanding philosophic thought, the mythic artist embodies his values through his creation, through his gods, heroes, and villains. Because of this, myth is able to instruct both the foolish and the wise. The foolish comprehend only the surface-level meaning of the myth, and are enriched, brought to a higher level of consciousness than they would have achieved without the art of the myth-maker. The wise are able to read the myth as allegory, rather than as literal truth, and create systems of theology and philosophy based on the foundation the the artist created. Myth is the medium that communicates both to the masses and the elites; it shapes the moral landscape of society as a whole. The mythic artist creates a worldview in which man can conceive of himself as something other than a naked animal on a rock hurtling through the void. He adds significance to life; his work allows man to sublimate the baser parts of his nature in service of something transcendent.
The mythological framework of a culture in large part determines its values, its moral landscape. It demonstrates what that society values, what it finds noble, and what it finds contemptible. A societies myths re-enforces the bonds of community through a shared system of values; it re-enforces man’s biologically influenced social nature. Thus if one is to understand a culture, a people—why they hold certain values and why they act a certain way—one must understand its mythic framework.
The mythic framework of the West is a product of Christianity. Christianity became the dominant religion in the West when it became the state religion of Rome during 380 A.D, a position which it held until mid 18th century, when it was superseded by liberalism, the current dominant ideology. This did not entail a rejection of Christianity, rather, liberalism evolved from Christianity; fundamentally, it is Christian morality secularized.
Christianity provided the mythic framework from which liberalism evolved. The moral essence of Christianity is expressed by its central figure, Jesus Christ, who declared,
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:32).
The last shall be first, and the first last” (Matthew 20:16).
“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).
These root ideas, conveyed by the authors of the Gospels, were refined into a system of theology by the Apostle Paul, who wrote,
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for all are one in Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:28)
It is only natural that a system of belief that stresses the brotherhood of man, humility, the centrality of the individual, and holds that possession of truth is key to the salvation of the soul would produce a successor ideology that advocates a morality of universalism, egalitarianism, and individualism founded upon a claimed devotion to scientific truth.
The caveat claimed is used because liberalism, like any other system of thought or belief, has a foundation of myth. The founding myth of liberalism, its “creation story,” is that man is solitary by nature. In the words of Thomas Hobbes, the founder of liberalism, man in a state of nature leads an existence which is “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” and forms communities for the sake of security rather than because he is a social being by nature, as classical philosophy and modern science hold. This conception of man allows the liberal philosopher to create a system of thought in which the individual rather than the community is the key political actor, in which “natural law” is the foundation for the individual’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Through this founding myth, the liberal is able to conceive of society as a contractual arrangement, as an artificial entity that derives its authority from the “consent of the governed,” who form governments to secure their “rights.” The individual and his “rights” thus become the core the value of Western society; any action that neither picks the pocket or breaks the leg of one’s neighbor is thus considered legitimate, the toleration of which is sacrosanct. This is further re-enforced by the contention that man is born as tabula rasa, a blank slate, the content of which is provided by his culture and his sensory experiences. This is the moral foundation for classical liberalism, the school of liberalism predominant until the 1930s, and still holds sway in the “Center Right” parties of America and Western Europe.
Modern liberalism, with its emphasis on egalitarianism, was founded by Rousseau, who in his Discourse on Inequality conceives of man as being a “noble savage,” who was naturally good in a state of nature, and only acquired vice from civilization. Rousseau contends that convention, tradition, and bad institutions are responsible for the negative aspects of human nature. Thus, they can be changed by social reform movements and legislation. This is the foundation for the therapeutic state, which claims the ability to re-engineer man in its own image, which has been predominant in the Western world since the Great Depression. This strand of liberalism is the moral foundation for “Center Left” parties throughout the Western world, and provides the ideological underpinnings for the secular humanism of the “social justice warrior.”
Both of these strands of liberalism are in fundamental agreement that man is born a blank slate, is primarily an economic being, and that the individual is the primary social and philosophical unit. Liberalism, like the Christian theology from which it evolved, holds that history is progressive rather than cyclical, that equality is morally good, and that a universal brotherhood of humanity is both desirable and possible. The difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism is a difference of tactics, not of fundamental principles.
It is for this reason that the cultural, political, and religious elites in the West support policies that lead to the destruction of their nations, communities, and race. The conservative, who ostensibly fights to protect “eternal principles,” always gives in on the question of identity. The modern conservative is merely an adherent to an older school of liberalism, or is an adherent to the faith from which liberalism sprang, Christianity. He cannot, in good conscience, resist calls for more equality, and cannot articulate a case for identity as his root philosophy holds that “all men are created equal” and his religion holds as sacred truth that “all are one in Jesus Christ.” To defend his racial group would undermine his commitment to the primacy of the individual. His instincts, which compel him to preserve tradition and hierarchy, are in conflict with his ideology; thus he always loses. This is the root of the “\#cuckservative” phenomenon. The leftist embraces radical egalitarianism both intellectually and instinctively and unreservedly, and follows his ideology to its logical conclusion—the creation of “The Last Man,” who believes that “Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same” (Nietzsche, 130).
If the White race is to survive the 21st century, a radical change in consciousness is necessary, a re-evaluation of values must occur. We cannot survive as a people if the slightest measures to ensure our survival, such as a rational immigration policy, are regarded as immoral. We need to create a moral landscape in which those who advocate policies which would lead to the extinction of our people are regarded with visceral disgust. To do this, the radical traditionalist artist needs to create a mythic framework that celebrates elitism rather than equality, which is particular to Europeans rather than universalist, which provides a place and meaning for the individual within the community, rather than conceiving of man as a social atom, and is self affirmative rather masochistic.
This is the task of the artist because the artist can communicate with all levels of the population through the use of narratives, which make use of poetry, imagery, allegory, symbolism, and metaphor, all of which act a subconscious level, in which the ethical principles of the artist are made flesh. This is not to downplay the importance of the scientist or the philosopher. However, the scientist and the philosopher can only reach that “one percent” of the population that relies upon reason to fashion its worldview. The artist does not share this constraint, as the medium of the artist is “emotional truth.” The artist—or the philosopher who uses the techniques of the artist, such Plato, Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, and Nietzsche, lays—the foundation upon which the philosopher builds, and he creates the moral atmosphere that is willing to accept on the hard truths of the scientist.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
- Jonathan Bowden on Robert E. Howard (video)
- Tomislav Sunic, “Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Europe”
- Alex Kurtagic, “Masters of the Universe”
Recommended reading for radical traditionalist artists
- Plato’s Phaedo and Republic, both of which deal with the subject of myth in depth, of special interest is how Socrates uses myth to re-enforce his arguments, when the arguments themselves fail to convince the other participants in the dialogue.
- Sir Philip Sydney’s Defense of Poesy