“Let us say you are newly introduced to all this neoreaction business. You’re aware that the coverage and representation given us by the media has likely been stricken by inaccuracies due at least to simple human limits, if not sheer malevolence, and you are willing to gaze into this void at its source. To assist with that end, this is a sequence of readings selected for their representation of the overall theme of the Dark Enlightenment. The point is less to offer up neoreactionary texts with the intent of persuading you of particular premises (though that is still an intent) but to provide an introduction to the neoreactionary mode of thought.
Altogether this canon must be hundreds of thousands of words in length; the Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives is by itself more than 100,000 words long. For that, this selection is not remotely exhaustive, but thorough. You shall become acquainted with arguments which favor monarchy, patriarchy, anarchy, ethno-nationalism, and a number of other modern triggers even horrifying. Most will reject our thought without any reading of the source material, but for those who find themselves stricken by a morbid curiosity and a desire to grapple with ideas you would never hear in the halls of academia, this is for you. Be warned, however. The nature of engagement necessitates, whether you agree or disagree with our aims, that you shall be changed. For better or worse, that is up to you.
A strict top-to-bottom reading isn’t necessary, but the categories have been arranged in an order conducive to complete beginners. The Major Works can be skipped for brevity, but it is certainly the case that the hard core of neoreaction is found in those texts. Initial Remarks will provide an introduction to the broad areas of agreement and the boundaries between neoreaction and related thought systems. Taking the Red Pill is a series of trenchant analyses of civilization which shall instruct in new hermeneutics for the interpretation of experience and social phenomena. Whipping Up a Society from Scratch delves into theory concerning the conditioning of individual’s lives by the social structures they participate in. Finally, Tinkering with Ideology illuminates insights as to the propagation and spread of ideas.
Best of luck.”
The above serves as Bryce LaLiberte’s introduction to the official Neoreactionary Canon. He, and several others (including myself), will be devoting pages on our sites to listing what you might jokingly call thesacred scriptures of Neoreaction. There are a few reasons why it was deemed necessary to organize certain writings into a core canon, but chief among them was a wish to facilitate greater ease in communicating Neoreactionary philosophy to non-Neoreactionaries. That in mind, there’s still a lot of required reading in this list, and I’ll admit even I haven’t read all of the works listed on it.
That’s a situation I intend to remedy, and if you’re in the same boat as I (which I predict to be the case), I recommend you do the same. It’ll take some effort, but isn’t that true of everything in life worth doing?
Art mirrors life, for artists can only express what they know, and all they can ever know is life. You’ll be hard pressed to find a finer example of this than the medium of film, which is perhaps the art form most evocative of the ethos of our time. It’s easily marketable, often doesn’t require a heavy investment of intellectual analysis, and can be filled with enough “feels” and political memes to reinforce whatever ideas and principles you see fit.
As such, the villains you see in popular movies are facsimiles of those we consider enemies on the world stage. Take a look at the popularity of Soviet villains during the Cold War era. When James Bond was portrayed by Sean Connery, a remarkable bevy of his villains hailed from Russia. Red Dawn, of course, dealt with the idea of a Soviet invasion, and even Rocky got political, taking the time to fly out to Soviet Russia and punch out Ivan Drago.
More recently, of course, as The Soviet Union broke up and Cold War thawed out, Hollywood has had to find new villains. In recent years (especially in the post 9/11 era), Middle Eastern terrorists have been popular villains, showing up in comic-book films like Iron Man despite having no place in the original canon. James Bond no longer fights Russians, but shadowy terrorist organizations. In the most recent Batman trilogy, The League of Shadows is portrayed as essentially a terrorist organization filled with ninjas, and who can forget Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker not as a criminal mastermind, but a psychotic terrorist?
Yet an interesting trend has sprung up in recent years. We’re starting to see an increase the number of Russian villains in Hollywood films again. The bad guy in the next Captain America movie is going to be allied with the Russians. The crazy scientist in Iron Man 2 was Russian. The most recent Die Hard film took place in Moscow. Apparently that new Jack Ryan movie that nobody actually saw covered all its bases and had Russian terrorists as the bad guys. A cultural analyst might be forgiven for drawing the conclusion from our movies that we’re in the midst of another Cold War.
(Since I’m sticking with film here, I won’t even go into discussing the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare series, which envisioned World War 3 between the Russians and the Americans)
Russian accents can be made to sound exceptionally sinister, but that alone is not sufficient to explain this resurgence of Russian bad guys. What other factors might be behind this trend? One might be nostalgia for a (perceived) simpler time. Having Russian bad guys reminds people of their childhoods, when Russians were the bad guys, and makes them feel nostalgic and protected, the way they were when they were young.
Having Middle Eastern terrorists as villains might also remind people of ongoing US presence in the Middle East, and conjure up thoughts about what exactly we’re doing over there. There’s a significant chunk of the population who want our soldiers home and who don’t want the government to keep engaging in drone strikes on such dangerous threats to the US as weddings and young children. There’s a lot of people don’t want to see terrorists as villains because it makes things too realistic and thus prevents film from being the whimsical escape from reality many people want it to be.
There’s probably some truth to these hypotheses, but fuzzy sentiments and superficial emotions almost never fully explain the nature of reality. We must also consider the observation I pointed out at the beginning of this post, that movie villains mirror those we think of as bad guys in real life. We can’t rule out the possibility that the people writing screenplays consider (to some degree) the idea that Russians might be bad guys.
Let’s connect some dots and see if we can figure out why this might be. First off, it’s common knowledge that most people in Hollywood skew liberal. Liberals are especially upset with Russia at the moment, given how the media has been portraying as Russia as the great scourge of gays (never mind that Russia’s policies must seemlike heaven to homosexuals in countries likeUgandaorSaudi Arabia). They’re getting pretty dramatic about it, andGodwin’s Lawis in(almost) full effect.
Despite the personal sentiments ofcertain Russian celebrities (which I suspect are not all that unusual among certain portions of the Russian populace), I highly doubt Russia is planning to burn gay people in ovens. This might be lost on the most ardent gay rights activists, but even those that get it still aren’t huge fans of Russia at the moment. Is it nay surprise we see this filtering over into our movies?
What progressives want, progressives inevitably get. The nature of The Cathedral makes this an inevitability. If mainstream progressives want to demonize and oppose Russia, the US is eventually going to do just that. Over the next ten years, it’s highly likely we will see further breakdown in US-Russian relationship, and the fault for that is going to lie squarely on American shoulders.
Spiting Russia is going to be added to our list of foreign policy priorities. We’re seeing early signs of this now. Take a good look at theUS delegation to the Olympics. Think this kind of blatantly antagonistic gesture was left behind in middle school? Think again. Welcome to the world of modern American foreign policy, where the passive-aggressive is the first resort.
Because of this kind of behavior, there’s a very real possibility of furthering tension between East and West in the future. The navigation of the US-China relationship was already going to be tricky enough, as the former loses power and influence and the latter gains, but additional pressure with Russia is going to make the resurgence of the East an even more unpleasant process for the West.
Maybe this is a good thing. I don’t doubt there’s a lot I’m missing here, and US policymakers have access to a vast wealth of information that I don’t. Still, I can’t help shake the intuition that this is a bit of a misstep, a tactical error that is going to, in some way or another, come back to bite the US in the long run.
Neoreaction has been a bit like the communal bong lately…everyone wants to take a hit. In the past few days we’ve had three different hit pieces directed at us (here,here, andhere), the most prominent of them being published in The Telegraph.
You’ll notice a common thread among all of these arguments: There’s a fair amount of snark, inaccurate representation of Neoreactionary beliefs, and a weird focus on ideas of race that borders on the obsessive. You’ll also notice that a nuanced and reasoned analysis of Neoreactionary ideas is shockingly absent from each of these articles.
You don’t have to be a Neoreactionary to notice this. Even the intended audience for these pieces has noticed that the arguments put forth in these write-ups are a bit lacking. Take a look at thecomment section for The Telegraph, or take note of just how many deleted comments are on that article atPatheos. Most people aren’t stupid. They realize Neoreaction isn’t getting a fair shake.
This has had an effect I find quite amusing. Those who have been previously on the fence are starting to pick a side to come down on…our side. MeetNeoVictorian, the newest reactionary writer to take up a keyboard, and someone who credits Bartlett’s less-than-stellar piece in The Telegraph with inspiring this action. Talk about “Antifragile“…
You know why these hit pieces sway the weak-minded and repel the reasonably intelligent? They’re all buzzwords and emotional appeals. No powerfullogos to speak of, which makes these pieces impotent in the face of any focused, intellectual analysis. They just don’t have the strength to withstand a heavy barrage of cognitive firepower.
Logos needs to be your foundation if you’re going to wage ideological war, because logical arguments are the only argument that can weather the scrutiny of intense analysis. This is why Neoreaction continues to make progress in the face of what is becoming a maelstrom of opposition on almost all sides. To put it bluntly, our logos is bigger.
Once you’ve got logos down, then (and only then) you addpathos andethos. To do otherwise puts the cart before the horse. If you care about truth, you prioritize rigid logical analysis, not petty emotions and warnings against thoughtcrime.
That said, pathos is certainly effective in persuading people to do or believe certain things. Yet, the combination of pathos and logos trumps it every time. The co-ordination of the two is stronger than either of the parts.
This is why I call for Reaction to further establish itsmyths and narratives. We’ve got the logos, and if we add the pathos, we make our appeal that much stronger.
Ethos is icing on the cake in this situation. In our time when character is almost an afterthought (in some parts of the West more than others) appeals to honor are pretty much outmoded. The only true appeals we see to ethos nowadays are admonishments against being a racist, sexist, or whatever -ist term is the popular epithet du jour against those not sufficiently progressive. Still, even now ethos has some swaying power, and in combination with the other two facets of persuasion it completes the great triumvirate of rhetoric.
When all three elements are put together, and presented in proper fashion, the majority of people cannot help but be convinced of your ideas. This is the end result that all those individuals publishing attacks on Neoreaction are trying to achieve, of course. The problem is, they’re missing key elements of this brew, and thus demonstrating their amateur status in the art of persuasion. Clearly they need to browseThe Patrician’s Library and take a peek at Aristotle’s Rhetoric (great read, by the way). What are those men ever going to do if they find themselves in debate with someone who really knows how to sway the hearts of men?
This is a weakness of many anti-Neoreactionaries, and what do we do when we see weakness in those who are vehemently opposed to us and are trying to appearing threatening? We exploit those weaknesses for our own benefit, of course. We have to do so if we want to survive the modernist assault, and we better get the practice in before the attacks on Neoreaction start to have teeth.
Around some circles, you often hear the importance of having a “mission” in life. I’ve always been skeptical of the dramatic emphasis on that sort of thing, but I do agree that people need to have some sort of impetus driving them on, helping them to persist and carry on when others give up and fail.
Think of a fire, burning within the soul. The bigger and more intense the fire, the more strength one has to plug onwards in pursuit of an end. Call itThumos if that helps you conceptualize it better. The right impetus serves as fuel to this fire, enabling to burn ever brighter.
You know what serves as a great impetus? Myth and narrative. Ever read a really good book and felt inspired? Perhaps you saw a kung-fu movie and decided to take up martial arts. Don’t try to tell me you’ve never imagined yourself as modern heroes of popular culture like Batman, James Bond, or Sherlock Holmes. Stories and tales are perhaps the most powerful force motivating human action, a fact that offers up a wealth of possibility.
Don’t believe me? Consider this story:
We are all bound by Fate. When Fate calls on us, we do not have a choice in the matter. Our burden is to obey. All things in life must be viewed through the lenses of Fate. Did Fate call on us to be reactionaries at a time when our civilization needs it most? At a time when the Modern World fully embraces the zeitgeist of the Kali Yuga, are we the chosen few, the warriors of Fate destined to pull civilization back from the brink of destruction?
A gripping narrative? If you invest yourself in it, you might find it highly compelling. Yet I only thought it up just now. Those words should carry no weight, yet if you find yourself assigning them any meaning, you might find yourself unable to escape the idea. Even if you didn’t enjoy that little myth, you still (more likely than not) compared it to your personal story of why you became a reactionary, further cementing that specific narrative in your mind. Either way, at least one story has just strengthened its hold on your mind, even if you don’t realize it quite yet.
That is the power of myth.
To paraphrase something they say over atThe Right Stuff: “Belief, not reason, builds civilizations”. They’re damn right. Reason is an important tool, but even more important for the proper flourishing of a civilization is a founding myth. America had the idea of the American Experiment in self-government, and later, the idea ofManifest Destiny and the pioneer spirit. One of the reasons Hitler was able to rise to power was because he offered the German people a narrative and a myth that was sufficiently compelling to garner the support of enough of the populace.
Now, as reactionaries and neoreactionaries, we all tend to be fairly logical, rather intelligent people. We place a very high premium on logical reasoning and intellectual capacity, and our favorite place to hang out is on the extreme right of the bell curve. Reason sways us. Strong arguments influence us. This is a very good thing. In fact, it’s downright essential for theElite members of a successful Reaction.
Group One is only half of the equation here, though. You still need mass numbers of individuals to comprise Group Two. As Anissimov points out, popular support is accrued through slogans, soundbites, and superficial overviews, not detailed and intricate arguments that have intentionally been hidden behind the veil ofarcane language and complicated prose.
Anti-populist as we are, a successful reaction of any kind will probably depend on some measure of popular support. Sure, theelites come first, but there are only so many elites, and having some popular support opens up doors that remain closed to a solely elitist movement. And how do we plant the seed of Neoreactionary thought in the minds of the average?
We give them a story. We give them a narrative, and make it one they can understand. Take the Neoreactionary meme of “The Cathedral”, for instance. There’s no such thing as a succinct explanation of “The Cathedral”. Is there any way to give an explanation simple enough so that even the people who write hit pieces on Neoreaction can understand it? Maybe not, but allow me to take shot.
This is how I would explain “The Cathedral” to someone with an IQ of 100 or so: “Most people in the media, which gives us our news, are liberal. Most people who enter Academia, which gives us our educations, are liberal. Most people who enter government service and bureaucracy, which runs the majority of government affairs, are liberal. They may not be actively co-ordinating with each other, but they are generally working towards the same ends. What do you think this does to society over time?”
Does it work? I don’t know. I’ve never discussed Neoreaction with someone of normal intellect. But that’s the story I’d give them. That’s the narrative I’d try to implant in their minds.
Few people will follow a convincing argument to unknown lands or uncertain circumstances. Give them a good story though, and they’ll follow it to the ends of the earth, against all logic or reason. When Ernest Shackleton needed volunteers for his Antarctic expedition, he didn’t make a rational argument. He promised a chance for glory and fame if they succeeded in surviving a dangerous journey.
Give someone a compelling and inspiring narrative, and they might literally follow it to the ends of the Earth. Hell, just look at how pernicious the meme of “equality” has become. People will do and say almost anything in service to that myth, which is why we now have people who think that only white people can be racist and all “penis-in-vagina” sex is rape.
But story and narrative is important for more than just motivating people. Culture, community, and society all grow out of the core narrative of any movement. Little in Neoreaction makes sense unless one accepts the presence of the central myth, “The Cathedral”. It’s a damn good story in its own right, and it has a solid grounding in fact, making it even more powerful, but is it enough?
That depends. If all one wants to do is to critique the modern iteration of Western Civilization, than The Cathedral Narrative is all you need. If you wish to transition from mere deconstruction to bold reconstruction though, you’ll probably need something more. Neoreaction might be able to get away with just critiquing democracy, but Reaction cannot just be about deconstructing a rival myth. There needs to be a better alternative to be offered up.
Going forward, what will be the central myth of the reaction?
The use of myth is, like most everything else, a tool to be used in pursuit of some end. Playing with narratives can be great fun, but it is also a potentially more dangerous endeavor than playing around with logical narratives. You can get people to believe almost anything, especially if it’s in story form. Scientology exists, after all. Stories should not be treated lightly. You never know what might become of them…
And that’s just pathos on its own! You know what happens when you mix it with logos and ethos? You can make some potent brews indeed….
Myths and stories drive one to great things
Reactionary narratives are going to be of great necessity in the future
The right narrative can do things a fine argument cannot
Stories are a particularly pernicious type of idea
Much boils down to the power of narrative
You need narrative that will serve your ends
People will believe almost anything if it’s a good story
I realize that this has had quite a bit less personal focus than the preceding steps on the Path. That was intentional. Stories tend to have a less personal element to them because the characters are only parts in a much wider work, not the central focus, like your workout plan or your reading list. That in mind, I will take some time here to give some personal advice. Find stories that inspire you personally. Explore tales of the noble and the heroic. Research the myths of your ancestors and try to connect with them. Make the fire that burns within you as powerful as you can. You’re going to need it.
I can’t tell you your personal story. I can’t lay out the great narrative of your life. Only you can do that. So I ask you this, now that you’ve finished “The Path to Legionnaire”, what story are you going to bring to life?
I have mentioned a few times before that I think Tumblr is a prime target for Neoreactionary expansion. Though I personally don’t frequent it too often (proper engagement with it requires a far shorter attention span than mine, which is saying a lot given my chaotic and unfocusedENTP sensibilities), I am greatly amused by the thought of Neoreactionaries and Social Justice Warriors duking it out with gifs, memes, and quick remarks, and I’d like to make that vision a reality.
Now, the number of properly neoreactionary Tumblrs could probably be counted on one hand. Tumblr isn’t exactly a platform that easily facilitates philosophical and intellectual musings on arcane topics, after all. After doing a bit of research, though, I found out fairly quickly that while the number of Tumblrs that might be considered neoreactionary is small, there exists a sizable population of Tumblrs that fall within the broader Reactionary/Traditionalist/New Right community. I found myself running across Archeofuturists, Nationalists, Evola-style Traditionalists, Hyperboreans, fascists, and more!
Ryan over atReactionary Traditionalistwas an invaluable guide to me in this process, pointing me in the direction of almost 500 reactionary-leaning Tumblrs. Here’s thefull list, if you’re interested, and amuch shorter list, if you lack the focus, attention span, and determination to trawl through 493 Tumblrs to find ones you like.
Those of you who have been paying close attention may have noticed that in the past few days, a new link category has sprung up to the right: Reactionary Tumblrs. It contains a brief list of those Tumblrs I find particularly delightful, and serves as my official declaration of support for all those Reactionaries seeking to carve out a niche on a site famed for the progressive nature of its users.
That said, here’s a few Tumblrs that I personally found to be enjoyable and heartily recommend:
Amos and Gromar ishaving a bit of fun at the writer David Brin’s expense, kicking off an “Exquisite Corpse“-style story detailing Brin’s adventures struggling against the malevolent forces of the Dark Enlightenment. I’ve always loved this sort of thing, and so I jumped in with a quick comment detailing what happened next. I reprint it here below for fun and amusement. If you care to write the next part of the story, I highly encourage you to do so in the comments.
“…grabbed hold of the chandelier, swinging himself across the room and landing with a (less-than-graceful) “THUMP” in front of the fireplace. Grasping a poker, he turned round and decried at the intrusive fop “Turn and draw, foul vagrant! I shall best you at your own little game!”
Yet the Aristocrat remained unperturbed. “Oh, I get it. You want to fence. How quaint.”
Brin pressed on, hoping to end this shenanigan quickly “It would not be noble of you to ignore my request for a duel!”
Yet still, the Aristocrat refused to play Brin’s game “It’s a good thing not all you naughty peasants are this way. You’d be even more insufferable than you already are. No, I come to you tonight with neither sabre nor rapier. We adherents of the Dark Lord have other means at our disposal for combat…”
Tentacles pulsating with dark magic erupted from the floor, seemingly sapping all the light from the room as they twisted and tangled in the firelight. Chills ran up Brin’s spine, but the thought of how the Enlightenment had enabled so many individuals to watch slightly less menacing tentacles penetrate young, animated Japanese schoolgirls gave him courage.
“NO” he cried, “I am a wielder of the Flame of the Enlightenment! I shall not let you defile and enslave these poor tentacles with your powers of Hierarchy and Tradition! All shall be free and enlightened before me, even those non-human entities that are nonetheless deserving of our respect and tolerance!”
It was the last thing he remembered before the tentacles wrapped around him and his consciousness faded away…”
I must admit, for a time I was rather confused as to to what to do with this section of “The Path to Legionnaire“. I had originally intended to give a brief analysis of the state of the modern world, but it would seem flippant for me to do so, considering the best analysis of the modern world I have ever run across is Neoreaction itself. I certainly can’t hope to do a better job of explaining our current state of affairs than the entire ideological movement of which I am only a small part!
Even looking at Reaction as a whole, how am I supposed to briefly summarize concepts like Game, Human Biodiversity, and Neoreaction in only a couple thousand words? Could I manage it? Yes, with great difficulty, but would that really accomplish what I have set out to do? I am not so sure…
So what’s a Legionnaire to do? I realized that there’s one thing many of my posts so far have been missing, to a certain degree: Narrative.
So instead of presenting some sort of logical or philosophical analysis, I’m going to share why I’m a reactionary, as opposed to any of the other ideologies that present themselves to me. I certainly accept the logic of Neoreactionary arguments, but logic motivates few people. Logos always plays second-fiddle to ethos and pathos. You can inveigh against this or engage with the world by the rules of the world. I know which one I prefer…
Let me share with you my story.
First off, I think men ought to be masculine beings, like they were in the past. The castrated, gender-neutral “utopia” of certain radical leftists is no utopia, but a dystopia in my eyes (and really, isn’t the difference between utopia and dystopia a matter of perception?), and I oppose its implementation. I want an arrangement that appreciates and celebrates masculinity and in which societal factors incentivize the cultivation of masculine traits like strength and courage. I’m not necessarily calling for something so extreme as Anarcho-Fascism, but almost anything would be preferable to the current arrangement., Hence, I reject how we treat sex roles in current societies, and react against it.
I’m also aware enough to realize that the myth of the United States as being a bastion of freedom and liberty is more fancy rhetoric than hard fact. In fact, one might consider the US to be essentiallya communist country. As Free Northerner has pointed out, there’s certainlysome evidence to support that assertion…
Communist or not though, the US just isn’t a free country. Now, I personally don’t consider freedom to be the greatest thing in the world. Most people can’t handle it and end up flaming out in the presence of it. True freedom is terrifying to all but the most aristocratic ofthe Natural Aristocracy. Most people need some structure, and it would be cruel to give them freedom. Still, we don’t even give freedom to those that deserve it. Our government watches over everyone using the NSA. Those with the innate capability to use drugs wisely are denied access to them. Those who call themselves “Pro-Choice” would take away your ability to choose to smoke in a restaurant, to keep your shoes on in an airport, to purchase firearms, and to live without giving money to failing school systems and degenerates on welfare (though they will support your “right” to an abortion). The eternal words of Tacitus seem to apply: “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
The modern United States has does have a lot of laws. We must therefore consider the possibility that it is corrupt, and even if not corrupt, it is more likely than not a less than optimal structure for governing Americans. I thus react against the current societal arrangement on political grounds.
I also don’t like the way our language is being altered, for it is starting to comes eerily close to a type of Orwellian Newspeak. For example, the phrase “Illegal Immigrant” is already not being used by the Associated Press, isbanned by certain universities, and it was nearly banned byThe New York Times. Can one think of a more efficient phrase to describe one who has immigrated into a country illegally? Of course not. There is none. Yet even this phrase has become the subject of controversy. Factual terms like this should not be subject to such absurdities.
Make no mistake, language itself is a battlefield nowadays, and those on the Rightneed to fight back. Because I do not accept the modernist distortion of language, I find myself revolting against the modern world on linguistic grounds.
I also reject modernist interpretation of history, which posits an unceasing march towards “Progress” (have progressives ever actually defined that term?) inevitably resulting in “The End of History“. Instead, I view history as a series of cycles (as touched upon by men such asJohn Bagot Glubband in books like “The Fourth Turning“). Instead of assuming an inherent teleology to human civilization, I say that history is a cyclical ordeal, not a linear one, and that the cycles of history can (for lack of a better term) be “surfed”. I also happen to think that many traditional norms and rituals are established methods for societies to ride the wave of historical cycles with minimal deleterious effect, and so I find myself rejecting Modernism on historical grounds.
Still, no Western country is traditional in any sense of the world, and thus we lack the framework and rituals needed to weather the storm of historical forces. So what are we to do?
On a societal level, of course, we can revert to a more Reactionary culture and system of governance. Still, barring drastic circumstances, I don’t see that happening, though I do think the future willprovide ample opportunity for reactionaries to take things back a bit.
On an individual basis, though, there’s little one can do. So what paths are there that one can take?
There are two main categories. Subvert or Exit. Basically, “Subvert” is sticking around and trying to change things, while “Exit” is getting the hell out of Dodge.
So what do I intend to do? Long-term (very long-term?), I intend to exit, and keep the fires of Western Civilization burning through my familial line (as well as any ideological adherents who choose to follow me). While I’m still here though (which will be for a while yet), I’ll be doing my best to stabilize and preserve Western Civilization and its ideals.
Bear in mind though, many Western Countries can’t be saved. The United States as a whole is beyond resuscitation. It is like a dead whale, a great Leviathan that is sinking to the floor of the sea, where its carcass will nourish all the bottom-feeders and other denizens of the deep. Those who wish to save the idea of “The West” cannot expect the dead and decaying nations that currently limp on to shoulder that burden. It falls upon different shoulders…our shoulders. We must carry the flame of Western civilization, that idea that began with the Greeks, passed on to the Romans, and has come down throughout the centuries to us. If feasting on the carcass of the Great Leviathan is what is needed to give us the strength to achieve that mission, than so be it. We must do what needs to be done to preserve Western Civilization.
So while United States may be dead (even if no one has realized it yet), I will still seize what opportunity I can. I will still strive for achievement and success while I am a part of this nation. I understand that even in circumstances that may seem poor,there is always opportunity. How can any of us expect to have the capability to carry the fire of Western Civilization if we can’t even make the most of the time we find ourselves in, a far easier and far less burdensome task?
A legionnaire is, above all else, one who conquers. I may not like the modern world, but I will still seek to cultivate personal excellence, manifest achievement, and attain success. Not only are these things personally beneficial, but they also provide me a platform from which I can espouse and promote Reactionary ideas. I can move the Reaction forward by moving myself forward, and in cultivating and refining myself, and I can leverage what influence I to sway the outcome of the battle between Progressivism and Reaction.
The Modern World may be messed up, but that doesn’t mean we have to be. That is why I call on all those who are willing to becomeLegionnaires.