Very good article which reinforces my long-held views on the subject.
But like many articles of this nature, it ends on a seemingly obligatory note of hope about the possibility of "renewal". But what real hope of "renewal" is there in the US and Western Europe given that they are now seemingly irrevocably devoid of a common culture and ethos?
To clarify the intent behind the conclusion: I did not suggest that renewal, in the sense of a mass political or cultural reawakening, is either imminent or likely within the current framework. Rather, I stated that the democratic age cannot endure indefinitely, that it arose from particular historical conditions and cannot outlast them, and that whatever comes after will not be decided by electoral sentiment or institutional inertia, but by those still capable of bearing responsibility for the future, by men who retain clarity of purpose and the will to act in service of something beyond themselves.
This is not a hopeful gesture in the conventional sense, but an acknowledgment of historical continuity. So long as our people endure, even in fragmented or diminished condition, the civilizational essence they carry remains latent, capable of reasserting itself in new forms suited to a different age. The political orders of the past—republican, aristocratic, monarchical—were never permanent structures but expressions of deeper cultural and biological currents. When those currents remain, form may be recovered, redirected, or renewed, even if not in its previous guise.
In practical terms, this implies that the individual response must begin with discipline and a gradual withdrawal from dependency on institutions no longer aligned with our well-being or continuity. It requires the cultivation of physical and material independence, the strengthening of mind and body, the rejection of demoralization, and above all, the forging of bonds with other serious men who understand the gravity of our position. What is needed now is not activism in the degraded democratic sense, but preparation in moral, spiritual, and logistical terms. Networks must be built, memory preserved, and the foundations laid for a new order that does not yet exist, but whose necessity becomes clearer with each passing year.
The task is not to salvage a system that is already hollow, but to become the type of man, a “new man,” from whom future order may emerge.
Democracy might be an illusion, or as the Greeks properly viewed is as "Mob Rule". But there is nothing illusory about when you find your life and position being overrun by foreign (or domestic) belligerent forces. People have become so inured to the cancel culture erasing lives as people once knew them, and history revisionist who do verbal gymnastics in order to justify "Victor's Justice" are almost always in demand. A belief in God, and his son was a common thread even among the various factions of the Founding Fathers of America (albeit, many were Masons). Patrick Henry's charity may have made him a poor business man, but his word remains. Where is that charity today among the masses?
Most of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians. This was very popular in the Enlightenment era.
For example, Jefferson believed that Jesus was peak morality but didn't believe at all that he was devine. Look up the Jefferson Bible.
Jefferson was a cuck.
As for masons, they only have to profess a believe in a monotheistic creator being. This then gets transformed through the levels of masonry into belief in the Grand Architect. (t. former mason that left)
I never implied that they don't believe in a god, but from my own studies into free masonry, the god they choose to believe in is Lucifer. Although I didn't have the money to buy one, I looked over a Masonic Bible and they are very much into symbolism. Because I know that with the Creator, even Jesus, all things are possible, and even they can repent and come to know him if they choose, but it must be of their own choosing, as we all must decide whether Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords or believe a "different gospel". There is only one true God, but we are all created for his pleasure, and he alone decides on whom he will have mercy or has made for destruction, but he also in his image made the will to be subject to their peculiar appetites, whether for good or for evil, the individual must choose. I choose to serve the Lord come what may.
They don’t prescribe their members in who to believe in. They just have to believe in a god personally, and if I recall correctly they’re not to discuss politics and religion at their meetings. So it’s a personal requirement, but not to preached.
Your beliefs in Christianity are unrelated to this.
In Michael Knowles's explanation of context in Divine Comedy, Dante held that "monarchy" was the appropriate form of government, and that even New Testament-affirmed that Rome was the rightful universal monarch.
Very good article which reinforces my long-held views on the subject.
But like many articles of this nature, it ends on a seemingly obligatory note of hope about the possibility of "renewal". But what real hope of "renewal" is there in the US and Western Europe given that they are now seemingly irrevocably devoid of a common culture and ethos?
Thank you for the kind words.
To clarify the intent behind the conclusion: I did not suggest that renewal, in the sense of a mass political or cultural reawakening, is either imminent or likely within the current framework. Rather, I stated that the democratic age cannot endure indefinitely, that it arose from particular historical conditions and cannot outlast them, and that whatever comes after will not be decided by electoral sentiment or institutional inertia, but by those still capable of bearing responsibility for the future, by men who retain clarity of purpose and the will to act in service of something beyond themselves.
This is not a hopeful gesture in the conventional sense, but an acknowledgment of historical continuity. So long as our people endure, even in fragmented or diminished condition, the civilizational essence they carry remains latent, capable of reasserting itself in new forms suited to a different age. The political orders of the past—republican, aristocratic, monarchical—were never permanent structures but expressions of deeper cultural and biological currents. When those currents remain, form may be recovered, redirected, or renewed, even if not in its previous guise.
In practical terms, this implies that the individual response must begin with discipline and a gradual withdrawal from dependency on institutions no longer aligned with our well-being or continuity. It requires the cultivation of physical and material independence, the strengthening of mind and body, the rejection of demoralization, and above all, the forging of bonds with other serious men who understand the gravity of our position. What is needed now is not activism in the degraded democratic sense, but preparation in moral, spiritual, and logistical terms. Networks must be built, memory preserved, and the foundations laid for a new order that does not yet exist, but whose necessity becomes clearer with each passing year.
The task is not to salvage a system that is already hollow, but to become the type of man, a “new man,” from whom future order may emerge.
Democracy might be an illusion, or as the Greeks properly viewed is as "Mob Rule". But there is nothing illusory about when you find your life and position being overrun by foreign (or domestic) belligerent forces. People have become so inured to the cancel culture erasing lives as people once knew them, and history revisionist who do verbal gymnastics in order to justify "Victor's Justice" are almost always in demand. A belief in God, and his son was a common thread even among the various factions of the Founding Fathers of America (albeit, many were Masons). Patrick Henry's charity may have made him a poor business man, but his word remains. Where is that charity today among the masses?
Most of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians. This was very popular in the Enlightenment era.
For example, Jefferson believed that Jesus was peak morality but didn't believe at all that he was devine. Look up the Jefferson Bible.
Jefferson was a cuck.
As for masons, they only have to profess a believe in a monotheistic creator being. This then gets transformed through the levels of masonry into belief in the Grand Architect. (t. former mason that left)
I believe one of the handful of requirements to be a mason is belief in god, so that part doesn’t fit in your otherwise cogent comment.
I never implied that they don't believe in a god, but from my own studies into free masonry, the god they choose to believe in is Lucifer. Although I didn't have the money to buy one, I looked over a Masonic Bible and they are very much into symbolism. Because I know that with the Creator, even Jesus, all things are possible, and even they can repent and come to know him if they choose, but it must be of their own choosing, as we all must decide whether Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords or believe a "different gospel". There is only one true God, but we are all created for his pleasure, and he alone decides on whom he will have mercy or has made for destruction, but he also in his image made the will to be subject to their peculiar appetites, whether for good or for evil, the individual must choose. I choose to serve the Lord come what may.
They don’t prescribe their members in who to believe in. They just have to believe in a god personally, and if I recall correctly they’re not to discuss politics and religion at their meetings. So it’s a personal requirement, but not to preached.
Your beliefs in Christianity are unrelated to this.
In Michael Knowles's explanation of context in Divine Comedy, Dante held that "monarchy" was the appropriate form of government, and that even New Testament-affirmed that Rome was the rightful universal monarch.
.www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b9wODrWwQo
Make sure the Marxists are defeated first!