Toward a New Movement, Part IV

Against Traditionalism.

More on this.

Biopolitics will replace the old fraud of Right vs. Left.  We care not if any specific policy of ours, or our entire program, is deemed “rightist” or “leftist” or whatever outdated label.  We are not conservatives, reactionaries, not in any way beholden to “right-wing” thought.  We are revolutionaries, striving to create a new order.

That is straightforward enough, but the point about “revolutionaries” is of particular relevance for the following:

Futurism, not Traditionalism. Unlike some of the more reckless statements in support of Futurism, we do not call for the abolition of museums, the disregarding of our past and the great deeds of our ancestors.  Past, Present, and Future are all linked.  However, we look to the Future, our real Golden Age is that which we will make in the Future, it is not some sort of delusional Traditionalist fantasy set in the Past.  We will not reject the deeds of our ancestors, but these are not the sum of our being, we do not settle for them – we must surpass them.  We remember the Past, but for the purpose of spurring us to achieve greater deeds in the Future. 

My preference for Futurism over Traditionalism will be dismissed by traditionalists as a mere preference on my part. Well, it is my preference, but it is far more than just that. I have often written abbot the difference between Left and Right, the constant progress and victory of the Left vs. the constant surrender and humiliation of the Right, and how the Left often induces its followers to heroic self-sacrifice, while the Right cannot even induce its followers to write a letter to the editor. There are of course many reasons for these differences, but one major cause is that the fundamental paradigm of leftism is revolutionary progress, looking to the future, a utopian impulse that inspires idealistic people to the self-sacrificial heroism I just mentioned. The Right, on the other hand, with its paradigm of backward-looking, reactionary “Traditionalism,” a conservative harkening to the past, “standing athwart history, yelling stop!,” is not going to inspire much of anything other than sitting on a couch, drinking beer, and watching sportsball.

Looking back to the 1950s or 1920s or Jeffersonian America or medieval feudalism or “de facto anarchy in the provinces” or any similar nonsense is not going to inspire the revolutionary activism we need.  We cannot compete with the Left with a vision of “woman in a wheat field White nationalism” – looking backward is not going to inspire anyone to do anything useful. Traditionalism is another battle cry of do nothing conservatism.

Then of course there is the underlying argument about which vision is a better one for the future of our people. Are we better off “snug in our hobbit hole” at a medieval level of technology and a feudal political system, being left behind by advanced Asiatics, or are we better off marching to the future and not trying to stop inevitable progress?  I know what my answer is.

More:

Rational realism and empiricism is for facts, values and objectives can be irrational. Thus, we reject the old, timeworn, factually incorrect knee-jerk beliefs, memes, and paradigms that have defined to so-called “racialist movement,” particularly in America. With respect to facts, history, knowledge – the age of “movement” dogma is over. We reject the misanthropic freakishness and lies of the old movement. With respect to facts, we depend on rationality, on realism, on empiricism – on real Science. But these things cannot provide us with our values and our objectives – they are merely tools. Our values and objectives can be irrational as they spring forth from our vision of the reality we want to come into being. But we cannot confuse what we want with what actually is – nor can be settle for what is instead of what we actually want. What is – that is the current reality, which must be discerned with empiricism. What we want is derived from our values, irrational as they may (or may not) be, and for these objectives, empiricism is only a tool, a means, not an end to itself. As part of this, the fantasies of Traditionalism – which invents false facts – must be put aside in favor of empirical facts and the irrational objectives of an enlightened Futurism.

Traditionalism has the added burden of being to a large part composed of crazed fantasies. Normal people, particularly educated, scientifically informed people - STEM people most of all - are not going to take seriously gibbering about Atlantis, Lemuria, or Ultima Thule, and who wants to hear about "Kali Yuga" or "The Men Above Time?" Further, traditionalists are opposed to real science and technics, and seem to aim toward the scientific/technical level of the 14th century. This sort of nonsense must be unalterably opposed.