Conservatism cannot deliver what is needed, it is opposed to radical changes, it is opposed to radical ideas.

§1 – Time

The word ‘conservative’ gives the implication that those who identify as a ‘conservative’ seek to conserve a current state of affairs, to be a ‘conservative’ implies the desire to ‘preserve’ something. A conservationist, for example, seeks to preserve the environment, to prevent the destruction of a natural habitat.

Just as a conservationist tends to hold contradictory ideas (generally conservationists also happen to be pro-mass migration, thus holding a political view that necessitates the destruction of more habitats and the increasing of consumption); conservatives tend to be opposed to progress while also being Christian – thus they subscribe to a linear conception of time. The linear conception of time which has been adopted by most of the Western world’s population places its adherents looking forwards towards the future, or more accurately, they are riding a train; the Left are at the front loading coal into the furnace while conservatives are seated in the back carriage begging for the train to stop – but it isn’t.

Conservatives continue to idealise the past despite their inability to return to it (they idealise periods of time in which they have never experienced in the first place, periods of time in which they would most likely be incapable of surviving). They make the mistake of idealising periods of history purely for its ontic/aesthetic elements while neglecting the essence of the historical phenomena. We should admire the past for its immediacy, the art and architecture of the past has so much beauty, symmetry and grandiosity. What was created in the past was driven by a powerful, positive spirit. Whereas modern art and architecture is created by nihilism, there is no longer any beauty. Nihilism can produce beauty when used as a means towards and end, but a huge glass cube is nihilism through-and-through.

This perception that conservatives have of a return to the past is flawed. They seek to return to something that can never be returned to as a whole, they envision a reproduction of the past which is nigh on impossible, hence why so many conservatives are willing to settle for the lesser, the few crumbs that the Left may give to them to shut them up temporarily.

This is why they still cling to petty nationalism, which is, in all honesty, defeatism. Petty nationalism is the equivalent of building your own coffin. To secure your own nation should not be the end goal of a nationalist, as other nations around you fall all you have accomplished in the end is a pause on your own demise. Polish nationalism will be of no use when France falls. France currently has fifty nuclear weapons, the moment it falls those fifty weapons will be in the hands of people incentivised to die in the pursuit of a global caliphate – their hands will be hovering over the big red button, ready to bring about a nuclear winter…

Our view of time must not be linear nor cyclical, we should view both these concepts as part of the same unitary phenomenon. They both serve a function in our understanding of reality itself.

Linear time functions as a tool for marking points in history, in the planning out of everyday events. We mark points in history by marking them as points in the past in which events occurred. Linear time is empirical as opposed to cyclical time being idealist. Cyclical time is useful in our understanding history in the morphological sense, such as the way in which Oswald Spengler utilised the cyclical conception of time in his Decline of the West.

But as stated above, these are two uses of a single phenomenon. We should not view them in a Cartesian sense (as two independent phenomena, the division of linear and cyclical time), but in a Heideggerian sense: We must also consider the existence of the other in our observations: An observation from a linear standpoint must take into consideration the cyclical movement of time as well. The linear and cyclical conceptions of time must be fused into one, we must view time as spherical:

From this perspective, indicates Giorgio Locchi, not only does the universe have neither a beginning nor end, but the most appropriate image to express the idea is no longer the circle (as in the cyclic conception of the Ancients), but the sphere. Time is a sphere, in which, as Nietzsche says, the ‘centre is everywhere.’ The ‘complete position’ of the totality of forces is always destined to return, because each combination conditions an infinity of other combinations.1

Instead of seeking to ‘conserve’ something that is already lost we should seek to reaffirm, renew, reenergise something that is still here but is being stifled: The European spirit. The only thing that really matters at the moment is the European people, the European race. No existing concept matters in the least, all of the structures that we cling to now have ultimately led to this very point of decay in which we need to escape.

The European spirit also lies outside of time. The spirit that built the European empires of the past, that created the art and architecture we all love and hold dear, it still lies within us. We can build great things again, and that is precisely what we should seek to do instead of clinging to fallen idols.

The spherical conception of time makes possible the ability to sweep away the rubble weighing us down and consider our situation from a clean slate. It was Nietzsche who shattered down the structures which allowed this decadence to eat away at Europe, and it was Heidegger who began to sift through the rubble identifying the useful pieces we can use again in the assembling of something new and wholly European. It is through the spherical conception of time that Guillaume Faye was able to envision an Archeofuturistic, Eurosiberian empire. It is in this same vein that we need to continue to think outside the existing framework, we must stop being ‘conservatives’ attempting to claw our way backwards while our enemy drags us by our ankles, we must carve out a new path and put forward a positive vision, a future with our archaic (foundational values) within a modern framework.


§2 – Radical Ideas & Fear of Nouns

Radical ideas must be countered with radical alternatives. Taking a moderate position, or watering down a radical alternative, allows the enemy to steamroll over you. Our enemies are putting forward a radical position and despite public opposition the direction Western society is moving in is their direction. For example, in America, Australia and the United Kingdom we have ‘conservative’ governments. And yet, all three nations are continuing down the path of deculturation. Let’s be honest, we are too far down the line to bother with ‘co-opting’ political parties or hijacking mainstream conservative movements. Nor do we have the time to continuously (and futilely) attempt to disprove our enemies’ pejoratives. A concerted effort needs to be made make the wider public stop running away from nouns like ‘Fascist’ and ‘Nazi’.

Words have a power of which a lot of people do not truly understand. Our entire existence is shaped by how we describe the world around us, the definition of a concept and the words selected play an enormous role in how that concept (or an object) is perceived and understood. Many people who identify as a conservative do not understand the implication given by the word itself. As we discussed above in relation to time, conservatives are placed in a precarious position where they must reject progress despite viewing time as something forever progressing forwards, they long for the past while being dragged against their will forwards. Conservatives are forever stuck in a confusing position where they understand history as a never-ending progression forward, but the people who own the concept of progression, and have defined it as a re-enactment of Weimar, are left with no opposition. 2

Those among the general public who identify as ‘conservative’ most likely hold views contrary to ‘conservatism’. Think about how many people among the public actually pay close attention to politics, how many people want to be able to go about their every day lives without having to engage in politics? In countries like Australia it is compulsory to vote. Having worked counting votes, I can safely say that around half of the public leave their slip empty or draw crude drawings instead of actually voting for a candidate. These people do not care about democracy, they just want a government that governs.

People want simple lives, they desire a nuclear family, potholes in roads fixed, public transport that runs on time, drag queens dragged out of libraries. They don’t want to vote; they do not want to conserve the decaying structures we have today. They want technology to progress, immigrants to leave, their kids to be able to play at a playground without being sold into a rape gang and to not have to think about which politician is going to take all of this away from them at a slower pace (because no matter who we vote for, all of this will be taken away, it is just a matter of who will take it away faster than the other).

Conservatism cannot deliver what is needed, it is opposed to radical changes, it is opposed to radical ideas. As Alain de Benoist stated in his essay Conserve What?

“There is nothing more antithetical to the spirit of conservatism than the spirit of revolution,” wrote Russell Kirk. However, in some circumstances, conservatives have to overcome their allergy against “revolution,” for otherwise they trap themselves in the role of accomplices of a system that they otherwise criticize.”3

We must cast away these empty, vapid terms which lock us in metaphysical cages. We must free our minds by perceiving existence in a purely European manner. We must define ourselves and our ideas in our own terms, not terms assigned or ascribed by ethnomasochistic academics with a kamikaze desire to burn everything around them. What we propose as an alternative modernity must be realistic but utopian, archaic but futuristic.


§3 – Archeofuturism

Archeofuturism is a dichotomy, it describes an inner nature and outer nature. Archaic is the inner nature of the European.

It is necessary to give the word ‘archaic’ its true meaning, which is a positive one, as suggested by the Greek noun arché, meaning both ‘foundation’ and ‘beginning’ – in other words, ‘founding impulse’. The word also means ‘what creates and is unchangeable’ and refers to the central notion of ‘order’.4

We have an inner nature, an authentic European nature. However, over time we have corrupted who we are by attempting to synthesise alien cultures into our own.

With special regard to the interpretation of Dasein, the opinion may now arise that understanding the most alien cultures and ‘synthesizing’ them with one’s own may lead to Daseins becoming for the first time thoroughly and genuinely enlightened about itself. Versatile curiosity and restlessly “knowing it all” masquerade as a universal understanding of Dasein. But at bottom it remains indefinite what is really to be understood,5

By trying to gain an understanding of ourselves thorough the lens of alien cultures we became increasingly inauthentic. Instead of appreciating other cultures as they are, we decided to start destroying our own, and even the other cultures themselves. This must be undone. We must split from the Eastern world and try to regroup. To find ourselves.

Indeed, we have already show that this is possible, that a unified European identity does lurk between the surface. The aesthetics of ‘fashwave’ has shown that an Archeofuturistic European identity is there. The fusion of historical Europe aesthetics with modernity, the reignition of symmetry and grandiosity with modern technology.


§4 – Balance

What is needed is a balance. The balance of Dionysian tendencies with Apollonian. The fracture can be found in the philosophy of Rene Descartes, the split of mind and body created radical Cartesian subjectivity, this led further to the alienation of the individual, radical individuality. When we look at the ‘social justice warriors’ and their perverted pets we can see the consequences of the separation of subject and object, what happens when you consider things independent of the whole. These creatures of interpretation believe that their own individual ‘feelings’ (narcissism and the need to be different from everyone. Split apart from the whole) take precedence over objective reality.

It is with Heidegger’s philosophy that we have a cure. We should not deny the existence of the subject, for the source of art and creativity comes from the subject. But the subject must be balanced with the object. As should individualism be balanced with collectivism. Our own desires are what drives us forwards, but those desires and whether we should pursue them must be judged by the impacts of the collective.

It is with this perspective that the dissident Right must proceed. A European Nationalist movement must be developed on the basis of subject and object, individual and collective. An identity must be formed, and a grand vision of a European Imperium must be established. Most importantly of all, if you are to take anything away from this essay, we must destroy conservatism.

Conservatism is moral syphilis, and I am stepping over it.


  1. Alain de Benoist, View From The Right Volume One (UK: Arktos Media Ltd, 2017), 123.
  2. I highly recommend a documentary on Keith Woods’ Bitchute channel about the decadence in the Weimar Republic. We really are currently living in a mirror image of Weimar.
  3. Alain de Benoist, ‘Conserve What?’, Telos, 2018/183, 114.
  4. Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism (UK: Arktos Media Ltd., 2010), 68.
  5. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (NY: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2008), 222.