LARPing Towards Victory?

Retroculture: Taking America Back
William S. Lind
London: Arktos Media, 2019.

One of the defining characteristics of the Dissident Right has been a scathing critique of American conservatism. The main charge is that mainstream conservatism has failed to conserve much of anything other than plutocratic wealth. For social analyst Brad Griffin of the website Occidental Dissent, “The price of admission [to conventional conservatism] is abandoning all of your beliefs and going along with this disastrous status quo.”  He notes that a 2019 Pew Research Center study found that traditional religious beliefs are declining at an accelerating rate further eroding the utility of a conservative approach to our problems. The conventional Right has been steamrolled in the culture wars to the point where transgender access to the public restroom of their choice is now the country’s cause célèbre.

Some argue that despite its deficiencies, conservatism serves as an ideological gateway to more substantive views. Many persons, including major thinkers of the post-1960s racial Right started out as conservatives before becoming radicals.

Revilo Oliver began his activism writing book reviews for William Buckley’s National Review and was a founding member of the John Birch Society. By the mid-1960s he had broken with conservatism. He describes his evolution in America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative (1981).

William Pierce also served a stint with the JBS during the 1960s. In his well-known essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win,” Piece writes, “Some of my best friends are conservatives,” but he goes on to state that conservatives do not understand the forces that oppose them, and only a revolutionary counter force can defeat the Left.

In 1960 Wilmot Robertson was a conservative business man. By the time he wrote The Dispossessed Majority (1972) he had come to realize that conservatism was part of the problem, not the solution.

But what about activists who have remained conservatives throughout their careers such as William S. Lind the author of Retroculture, the book under consideration here. Is he a different sort of conservative who deserves our attention?

Lind, a Baby Boomer (b. 1947) and self-described paleoconservative, graduated from Dartmouth and earned a master’s degree from Princeton. He began his career as a staffer for Senator Robert Taft Jr. He is probably best known for developing the concept of Fourth-Generation Warfare back in the 1980s.  The basic idea of 4GW is that future wars are likely to involve non-state actors either against states in asymmetrical conflict, or against each other. 4GW is rooted in the crisis of state legitimacy.

In the 1990s Lind helped popularize the term “cultural Marxism.” Lind is also somewhat of a race realist who discusses the issue of Black crime. The Great Replacement is considered an aspect of 4GW.

In 2009 Lind and the late Paul Weyrich co-authored The Next Conservatism, a highly critical look at neo-conservatism. The authors made a number of cogent points such as the primacy of culture over politics. Election victories by so-called conservatives have not stopped the Left’s cultural revolution, nor have they halted demographic replacement. Neoconservative economics favors Wall Street over Main Street, and its foreign policy supports costly military interventions. Unlike most conservatives Lind and Weyrich supported environmental protection and the New Urbanism. Presently Lind writes for the American Conservative and the online journal traditional Right.

More evidence that Lind’s Retroculture might embody a different sort of conservatism is that the book was released by Arktos Media. Founded in 2009, this company quickly established itself as the leading publisher of rightwing thought. With more than 170 titles and publishing in sixteen languages, they have issued works by Guillaume Faye, Alexander Dugin, and Pentti Linkola as well as older works by authors such as Julius Evola.

The theme of Retroculture is established early in a brief Forward by John J. Patrick, professor of education emeritus at Indiana University, who asks: “Why can’t we restore old lifestyles in the same way people are restoring gracious old houses? The answer is we can” (xi). Really?

In the first chapter, “Signs of Change,” Lind lists some indications of an emerging conservative cultural revolution: Old neighborhoods are being restored, new “old towns” such as Seaside, Florida are being built, admen are using the past to market all matter of goods and services, ignoring the displacement of Whites from advertising. “Young people, especially young families, are going to church again” (7). This last statement flies in the face of the Pew study mentioned above. Unfortunately, the author makes a number of unsubstantiated claims using anecdotal evidence at best.

At the end of the chapter Lind asks, “Is it all just nostalgia? Or is something more happening here — something big?” (10). First, this book is saturated with nostalgia, though several times Lind denies indulging in those sentiments. Yet if nostalgia is strong enough and widespread enough, it would indeed be something big. Nostalgia is a form of alienation, and collective alienation can be the first step towards fundamental change.

In Chapter Two Lind defines retroculture, a concept he and Weyrich touched on in The Next Conservatism. “Retroculture rejects the idea that ‘you can’t go back’” (11). Almost every student of history would disagree. As with many paleocons, the author sees the 1960s as the great watershed, so going back means pre 1960.

No matter how radical, all rightwing thought contains some elements of conservatism. Lind mentions that America should not reject its inheritance, but rekindle a healthy national identity. People should respect wisdom received from past ages — the basics of civil nationalism. He decries the “selfism,” the self-centered and self-indulgent ideology associated with the left that gained currency during the 1960s. One problem he does not mention: This selfishness has morphed on the Right into libertarianism, thus occupying two poles of the political spectrum, a two-headed monster.

In Chapter Three, “Getting Started,” Lind seeks historical examples of retrocultural revolutions. He points to the Renaissance as one case. Well, the Renaissance did use earlier classical civilizations as a source of inspiration, but Renaissance Italy was a far different place than ancient Rome. In an American context the author wants to reestablish traditional values, “civility, public spiritedness, charity, craftsmanship and stewardship among others” (27). He advocates for walkable cities. Hard to argue with any of this, especially walking. Walking is great exercise and a form of active meditation. Of course, integrated schools and housing helped create suburban sprawl, an environment not conducive to perambulation.

At this point Lind suddenly asks rhetorically: “But wasn’t the past bad?” A good question because throughout the book the author tends to idealize the past. He answers that retroculture captures the good and eliminates the bad. “No one seeks to return to Jim Crow laws” (32). Permit me to mix metaphors: One cannot cherry pick cultural practices. Culture is a whole loaf.  The traditional American way of life was only possible with a significant degree of racial separation.

Chapter Four is about retro-homes. The book is full of good ideas (a few silly ones also) for lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, these individual decisions are not going to bring about the fundamental social change we need. Lind advises buying an older house in an established neighborhood. They “are less expensive” and “have sidewalks and big trees” (40). My own house is 115 years old, so I agree with the author. The problem is that many of these old neighborhoods have changed so demographically as to be uninhabitable, especially for White families.

To his credit Lind is as close to being a renaissance man as you are likely to find these days. He is one of the few persons who can discuss military history and tactics, residential architecture, sartorial issues, as well as classical music with authority.

In Chapter Five Lind decries the decline of domesticity in American culture since the 1950s. Interestingly he does not explicitly criticize feminism, but does write that kids need a mom at home. Strong families produce well socialized children, a worthy goal, but how do you achieve it? That would definitely require a cultural revolution.

When Lind considers education, we see an example of a blanket statement idealizing the good old days. “In the past, parents were careful about what their young children learned. They saw to it that stories taught sound morals, that good conduct was rewarded and bad swiftly though fairly punished, and that manners were inculcated right from the outset” (73). Well, some parents in the past did not do those things, and some today still do. That more parents in the past successfully socialized their kids and fewer do today has less to do with individual parental efforts and more to do with a lack of societal support. Again, we need a cultural revolution.

Optics has been an issue for the Dissident Right, and in Chapter Six Lind offers some sound sartorial advice. The decline in American standards of dress has been precipitous across the board. He recommends buying fewer articles of quality conservative clothes. This will save you time and money in the long run because your apparel will look better and last longer. The author points out that men’s fashions have not changed much in the last three generations. “Lapels shrink and grow, shoulders fatten and thin, and the fashion trade tries to make a big deal of it all. In fact, its piffle” (94). Some shopping advice: “By needing fewer things, you can also frequent better shops when you buy, thus avoiding the degradation of the discount house and the silliness of the boutique.” In a decent men’s shop “you get real value, good American and British stuff, not some wog creation that makes you look like a pimp” (94).  One last fashion tip, leave Hawaiian shirts to Hawaiians in Hawaii.

Chapter Seven deals with entertainment. We can all agree that much of contemporary popular entertainment is crass, ugly, and downright offensive, but Lind goes ultra-reactionary when discussing music. Many on the Dissident Right, myself included, love the romantic classical genre of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century composers such, as Wagner and Sibelius. Lind, on the other hand, believes these are much inferior to the eighteenth-century greats such as Bach.

Other notes on entertainment: dinner parties are preferable to cocktail parties “where people surreptitiously try to make a meal of hors d’oeuvres while pretending to enjoy superficial conversation with persons they’ve never met” (109). Lind includes civic engagement as a form of retro entertainment. All too often people on the Dissident Right, especial young people, shun mainstream community involvement believing they will be stigmatized and rejected. This is usually not the case if they possess some people skills and live in a compatible community (i.e., one with few of Edward Dutton’s spiteful mutants). Lind recommends leisure reading to recapture lost worlds. Old National Geographic magazines are excellent in this regard.

Concerning the present lack of civility and good manners, “When did we go wrong? As usual, the answer is in the cultural revolution of the 1960s” (122). That decade was a turning point, and today our society is simply too diverse for a common etiquette. Lind’s solution: “don’t frighten the horses.”  Everyone should at least be discreet when engaging in behavior that may offend others. How likely is that to happen? A more practical suggestion by the author: boycott businesses whose practices or advertising is offensive. In the area of public behavior, Pandora’s Box has been opened and we would need a cultural revolution to set things right.

Lind has long been a supporter of train travel so it is no surprise that he advocates that mode of transport, after all. on the Chattanooga Choo Choo, “dinner in the diner, nothing could be finer.” If motoring, the author suggests taking the scenic routes rather than the interstates and having a picnic at a roadside park rather than eating at “fast food joints, those gustatory cesspools of the Interstate Era” (151).

In the chapter on retro business, Lind opines that there is an untapped market for retro furniture and clothing. “Publications are another major market where Retroculture could be good business” (160). Really? It seems as though print media are struggling. “What about the return of the great department stores of the 1920s and 1930s?” (162). Brick and mortar retail is another uphill battle these days. It appears the author’s acumen may not extend to business and economics.

The final chapter, “Retro-America,” sums up Lind’s view of our country: Where are we and where are we headed? He declares that we have lost our confidence. “Americans have become pessimistic. … people are not happy with the way things are or where they seem to be going.” (177). Well, he’s half right.  The traditional core demographic of America has lost its confidence. It has allowed its history to be rewritten, its heritage to be denigrated, and its monuments to be torn down with impunity by mobs of punks and thugs. Ethnic minorities, on the other hand, are empowered, culturally and politically ascendant.

Yet the author is sanguine about the future. He believes the counter-revolution has already begun, “it is already happening.”  This neo-reactionary movement will pick up steam during the 2020s and largely be accomplished by the late 2030s due to “a great national rediscovery of our past” (182). The end product will be “America as it was: quietly prosperous, well-tended, harmonious and at peace” (190).

Lind’s belief in a great restoration is an illusion. There is no returning to circa 1950. We are a vastly different country now, demographically and culturally. Moreover, what would be the impetus for such a restitution? Research suggests that a revival of fundamentalist faith is unlikely. And increasing numbers of diverse Americans do not share Lind’s reverence for our past. Indeed, the American past is routinely vilified in all the cultural high ground, from the mainstream media to the universities and throughout the educational system.

I began this review by asking what role paleo conservatism might play in our people’s instauration, offering that it may be a useful portal to more radical ideas. It’s certainly true that paleoconservatism can be an ideological halfway house. Unlike neo conservatives who embrace disembodied ideals of a universal propositional nation, paleocons appreciate the primacy of culture over politics in shaping a society. Culture informs politics rather than the other way around. But such an ideology can also be a dead end of wishful thinking and escapism. You can study the past, but you cannot live there. The old common culture America once possessed has been destroyed by the multi-cultural Left. There is no going back. History never moves in reverse.

What many paleo cons have trouble accepting is the racial foundation of culture. Ethnic change within a society will inevitably bring about profound cultural change.  You cannot preserve the constitution without preserving the ethnic group who conceived it, nor can you preserve the pre-1960s culture with the ascendant non-White majority. Paleoconservatives have a vision of what they want America to be. Lind lays out that vision at the last chapter, but he, and his ideological fellows, have no realistic route to arrive there. What is more critical — even if by some miracle we could reconstruct 1950s America, it would be insufficient for our project of promoting the welfare and progress of Western peoples and their civilization. We should aspire to do better than simply replicating the past. We can use our science and our aesthetic to create a better world.

Retroculture contains some pithy criticisms of contemporary culture along with a number of useful tips for individual and familial living while waxing nostalgic for times past. It might be a good suggested reading or gift for an older mainstream friend or relative.

22 replies
  1. Joshua Sinistar
    Joshua Sinistar says:

    “Conservatives” are worse than useless. They present false opposition to the Jewish agenda. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of AIPAC and have no intention of challenging the Jewish agenda. They want to lose. They are The Generals paid to lose to the “cool” Harlem Globetrotters. They also defend the right flank of the Jewish agenda from REAL OPPOSITION. This makes them enemies not allies. They are and always have been false opposition.

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      Amen to your entire comment! (And I do mean Amen, not Awomen as put by Amoron).

      The very term ‘conservative’ defines its destiny of failure, for in Nature nothing remains the same. Stasis (or conservatism if you will) is unnatural. Humans are subject to Nature’s Laws, whether we like it or not.

      Mother Nature cannot be fooled. If the Right wishes to become radical it can win. If the Right wishes to become revolutionary it can win. But so long as the Right remains reactionary it is destined for termination.

    • David Schmitt
      David Schmitt says:

      Mr. Sinistar: You have provided a valuable comment. I have left a number of comments at the Arktos site with my mini-review of ‘Retroculture’. I wholly agree that mere political conservatism and a rekindling of superficial appreciation for retrocultural aesthetics alone, or even together, is not going to right our national ship. Nonetheless, a point that I tried to make in my comments at Arktos is that there can be, and actually already is, a Deep Retroculture that is not about aesthetics per se, but is about a (European) people with sufficient demographic density whereby the power of intelligence and taste manifested in characterisitcally rational, orderly and pro-family ways ways will naturally re-assert itself. But, to some degree, I pointed out, reposturing ourselves in conducive environments–which will appear retrocultural–can help foster, though not cause, the revivasl on a profound level. Cultures and societies are such complex things. For many of our people, and I think it is probably mostly women, they need to see that we are working–and making significant progress–towards a hopeful aesthetics of family life and local, neighborhood vitality and security. Women need to see it happening and they beed to see beauty at least sprouting. In this way, even the surface layer of retroculture can make a positive contribution to a more profound revolution to which we aspire. It is a bootstrapping maneuver of civilizational proportions. This is going to take cuourage to name the problems accurately—as you pointed out. We are going to need to assert our identity, proclivities, interests and requirements for a flourishing that comports with our nature, the way our nervous systems and perceptual systems operate, communicate and interact with our common culture.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      I think by “conservatives” you really mean “Republicans” and/or “neoconservatives”. True conservatives understand that race is the foundation of ethnonationality, which in turn is the foundation of ethnoculture, which (if the ethnoculture in question is noble and beautiful or at least acceptable according to Christian moral law) is what conservatives are seeing to conserve. Allowing a small outsider ethnic group to wage demographico-econo-political warfare against your ethnoculture is not at all conservative, properly understood.

      • Prof. Woland
        Prof. Woland says:

        The left is culturally reflexive. They do not have a real culture of their own so they have to copy the existing dominant Euro-American one and try to co-opt and bastardize it. This is reinforced by the fact that every major important invention and discovery has been accomplished by white men. In turn, this has humiliated them making them even more angry lashing out with envy and hate.

        They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but many on the left are so delusional that they actually think that they played a significant role or that we would not have been successful without them. The opposite is true. Minorities have been a boat anchor chained to our ankles since they got here. Some on the left know deep in their hearts that that this is true and a million years could go by and nothing would change it. They are even worse than the blue pill idiots, nursing their grudges and dreaming about revenge.

  2. Carl
    Carl says:

    The Leftist/Black/anarchist riots of 2020 may have woken up a lot of Whites. Recall that some Black mobs even marched into suburbs and claim Whites’ homes.

    If such mobs go into more and more White suburbs and cause a lot of mayhem, it may wake up even more decent Whites.

    But the latter are going to have to get very, very frightened by the Left and Blacks – enough for them to know that they are in real danger.

    That will require the Left and especially Blacks to get much more aggressive and threatening.

    However, if the Democrats legalize illegal aliens to vote in the next 2 years, then that combined with Democrats engaging in massive election fraud, may spell the end since good Whites will be permanently outvoted.

    It is possible, though, that if the economy slides downhill, even illegal aliens and election fraud may not be able to stop a GOP resurgence.

    Trump and some really smart and dedicated paleo conservative associates, along with lots of lawyers and fundraising, should start an organization(s).

    It would stage truly massive events like strikes and boycotts to show the Democrats and the Left the real strength of common sense Americans, who are still the majority. It only requires the will to do it.

  3. Servenet
    Servenet says:

    There is one solution and one solution ONLY…Whites MUST have a country, a state, a nation, a LAND that IS THERE’S EXCLUSIVELY. If there are to be ANY non-Whites in their midst it must be no greater than 1% (or something VERY CLOSE). That 1% must neither have franchise nor citizenship. However that is achieved (either expulsion or secession) it MUST BE ACHIEVED…or Whites will perish from the earth.

  4. Richard von Veers
    Richard von Veers says:

    I don’t know.

    In many ways our previous achievements may show us the possibilities the greatnes of our ethnical group so to speak.

    And also it may in some ways indicate what may come natural for us. Hence a contact with the greatest things made by our race may be relevant in order for new talents that may be progressive or experimental and do new things also.

    Therefore all whites should know the greatest authors or atleast many of them. European and American, same with painted art and music.

    Also our achievements inventors & inventions should be focused on.

    But then again everything had to start at one point and then there was of course less culture existing and less inventions by whites it was still done.

    We must take back the control of higher education especially in technology.

    Regardsless I think our best cultural achievements so far will resonate with many young whites.

    But then, conservatism, retro?

    Thats just stupid. The most interesting art tend to push the envelope.

    But look at african music in the USA. Hip hop was quite retro but with a twist. It was the looping of the break part of mainly “funk” records which was at the time untrendy and not much new things happened there. I guess at the time disco was the dominant genre and many african really disliked it. The more rhytmical aspects of “funk” may have felt more natural to them and also that to some degree probably goes back to the banging on “bongo” drums and the like in Africa.

    Also the first rap record was recorded by a group connected to the black panthers.

    Hence the culture was probably a search for an exploring of an african identity in a majority white country (although these areas were certainly dominated by subsaharian africans, and whites were a minority in these cities, probably more subsaharians than WHITES living in them).

    And also what comes natural to them.

    The usage of samplers invented by whites may have given a whiter feel to the music due to the feel of the sequensing and the like in those machines. And also many subsaharians are part white and indian (american indian) and the like and this may make alot of the music more universal or something.

    But also, is there something about these rhytms that vere probably partially developed in colaboration and in exchange with whites, that kinda relates to our monkey self even with whites?

    I mean all different races share about 90 % of their genetics with monkeys I read.

    Then maybe this funky music speaks to this part of us. We all have a monkey part that wants to do some funky wild dancing. And with africans on the average having more monkey and pre neanderthal genetics, maybe they on the average have it easier to tap in to this kinda expression and may therefore have an advantage.

    Their musical expressions have crertainly benefitted them greatly. The created their own culture where now most blacks just listen to african music (made by others being at large subsaharian). This also keeps many whites liking their creative expressions which makes for power and people becoming illogical and inactive when whites become a minority and our territory stolen often by their group. It also glamourizes their aggressive and criminal behavior (drug selling, pimping, violence) and thus many whites become illogical when it comes to seeing and recognizing the real threat of having subsaharians among our midst.

    Also it is a promotion of the multiracial society pushed by racemixed “jews”. So they push this society and also promote it by promoting their music.

    Now africans in the USA can live in their own bubble and they control large part of cities where lotsa whites would like to live. This is also where culture tend to be created and developed. And where there are tons of jobs and places of education and…

    They have tons of kids and have increased their part of the population, where whites have decreased their part of the population (the ongoing holocaust).

    Will conservatism help. I don’t know burgeose values?

    I think we should teach people the classics and also focus on individuality and encourage people to express themselves in education.

    But no sex before marriage and the like? The problem with christianity taday is it shuns away from non PC teachings of the bible, which is a racist book, that declares GOD want’s to make possible for his greatest achievent of peoples, our RACE to further develop and create. A future for whites a futuristic WHITE culture.

    Is experimental art sometimes great, yes it can be. Is futuristic art and expression great, yes it can be very much so and the same with the idea of Avant Garde.

    • Leon Wunder
      Leon Wunder says:

      So youre saying that the subsaharian music is popular because in effect we have so much monkey genes we can’t help to chimp out so to speak when we hear a “funky” drum.

      So part of us just wanna hang out in the jungle and dance with females. Drop out and get “funky”.

      Should we occupy a country with jungle or a part of it and turn it to an etno state.

      Then again, these countries with jungles tend to have sharks, snakes, toxic spiders and pirahyas.

      Maybe we should settle with a carribean island or a few of the. I mean the blacks / spaniards / commies could keep most of them. But shouldn’t we have atleast a few nice ones.

      When I get rich I might just buy an Island and use like part of it for tourism or something. But then again, to only allow whites to visit I assume it would have to be openly WHITE SUPREMACIST / “NATIONALIST” or WHITE INTERNATIONALIST or WHITEISTS kinda.

      So, let’s go!

  5. Richard von Veers
    Richard von Veers says:

    Another interesting thing is that when africans subsaharian ones are left to themselves they tend to go for simpler rhytms like the ones used in afro pop and dancehall.

    So is the “hip hop” music an effect of the african mixing with whites and other races? Probably so.

    I would prefer if the subsaharians in the USA went for a more pure african sound with more like afro pop or dancehall rhutms and sounds.

    This would probably be more natural to them.

    And when whites have their OUR own music, this would accelerate what I think will be a movement for races to move away from each other culturally and eventually geographically (may happen fast).

    Is there already some kinda music like this made by subsaharians in the USA, but it being supressed by jews in the industry for not being universal?

    Probably not, the main trend seems to be drill music or the like and also these record companies do push afro pop and reggaeton that has a similar beat.

  6. Leon Haller
    Leon Haller says:

    I have often found William Lind to be one of the best writers at The American Conservative, but this book’s contents, or at least its reviewer, makes him sound like a bit of an idiot. I am myself a paleocon, and I was not aware that paleoconservatism was nothing more than an exercise in nostalgia. In fact, it is not. Lind is simply a reactionary, mourning the loss of a superior or preferred earlier cultural order. I, too, am reactionary, but am under no delusion that the past can actually be recreated. Wittgenstein is supposed to have said somewhere that trying to resurrect a dead culture was equivalent to attempting to re-attach a broken spider’s web. The very best that might be possible would be to recreate tiny “communities of nostalgia”; say, paleoconservative or Old America–themed housing developments (I once tried to get some serious-money real estate investors interested in precisely this type of idea, but the money men lacked the requisite imagination, and so nothing came of it). Of course, a series of such interlinked planned communities across one state could, if sufficiently numerous but geographically limited, form the basis of a future ethnostate.

  7. Vreemers
    Vreemers says:

    It’s also quite interesting how subsaharian african culture seems to have gone international. In africa there is a focus often on dancehall music and afro pop where those genres also sound quite similar, has a similar theme. And then the UK and USA both has a similar drill scene.

    Hence it’s international race etno centric culture looking at it from many aspects.

    Almost like something David Lane proposed for whites (whites getting together in effect and developing and the like and having contact internationally as oposed to nationalism), but done by blacks.

    Have they read David Lane or is it just because of their large etno centrism?

  8. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “He notes that a 2019 Pew Research Center study found that traditional religious beliefs are declining at an accelerating rate further eroding the utility of a conservative approach to our problems.”

    And the problem is?

    “The conventional Right has been steamrolled in the culture wars to the point where transgender access to the public restroom of their choice is now the country’s cause célèbre.”

    What does that say about the Right?

    The Right has been getting its ass handed to it since the French Revolution. Ever since then the Right has looked like a frightened child clinging to his mom’s leg on the first day of school, scared to death to move forward because it doesn’t know how.

    For this reason, and many others, the claim of the Right to be the defender of Western culture in general and Whites in particular is laughable. And by the way, that the Left is insane and evil doesn’t make the Right good.

    Speaking of insane, that “Retroculture rejects the idea that ‘you can’t go back’” only proves Nietzsche right when he said that conservatives think like crabs walk – backwards.

    He also said something that applies perfectly to the Left when he wrote, in so many words, Anyone who spends a lifetime fighting an enemy has a real keen interest in making sure their enemy – stays alive! The Right is more than happy to oblige the Left in this regard, empowering them in the process. Numbskulls.

    All the Right is doing at this point is keeping the Left alive by providing it with its much needed narcissistic supply.

    In any event, you don’t show the past respect by clinging to it. There’s a reason Schopenhauer started his masterpiece with that quote from Rosseau, “Quit your childhood and grow up!”

    Anyone who truly values European culture and “White interests” should ditch the Right and Left asap. Unlike bringing back the past, transcending it can be done.

    The irony is one shows far more respect to the past by transcending it than they do by “conserving” it, simply because you can’t transcend anything you don’t know and know well. The Right doesn’t even know itself. Neither does the Left.

    It’s high time we focus on what we can do. Not what we can’t. In short, it’s time we start living in reality.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “Anyone who truly values European culture and “White interests” should ditch the Right and Left asap.”

      Giving such advice should be accompanied with how it is to be done. What replaces Right and Left?

      “It’s high time we focus on what we can do. Not what we can’t. In short, it’s time we start living in reality.”

      How are we not now living in reality? Or, what does it look like to “live in reality” as opposed to what we’re doing now, in your opinion?

  9. Old School Counselor
    Old School Counselor says:

    Great article. Many are on board. I recently started a dissident church for retro-culture. We will be out front in the cultural revolution by first creating a structure in which we will hold each other accountable morally, and by doing so as we are immersed in the traditions of westmen. Our primary function will be as radical resisters. This article gives us many great ideas and a lot of reinforcement. Thank you for writing it.

    ROBERT J BLOCK says:

    This is silly. Revilo Oliver was hard right long before he wrote for NR. NR supported segregation in 1957. Oliver was not a photographic-negative woke David French. He was a rightist, virulently Anti-Semitic and he believed Buckley was a kindred spirit which was a reasonable inference in the 50s. When they broke, he sent Buckley a dagger with a note that read: “for your next friend, if you have another friend”. They don’t make em like that anymore.

    But — the blonde in the cornfield/hayfield/farmey place? No. She doesn’t want a Grant Wood life. She doesn’t want to pop out 11 babies – unfortunately, her body would need to be utilized. What the blonde wants is Gucci & Prada & Yada, and maybe one child or at most two, and darling she loves you but give her Park Avenue. All these hyper-verbal scribblers (in that respect, not unlike our Jewish friends) selling breakthrough concepts (the managerial revolution! Back to the land! The Jew as wholesaler of death! Southern gothicism! Wear hats with horns! Anarcho-terrorism-chic!) mean nothing. They control no wealth. No Prada. No Yada. No white babies.

    Whites are tool-makers, silver-smiths not word-smiths. Their strength is in PATENTS. They create wealth through superior technology. That is the way and the truth and the light. Every scribbler this scribbler cites is a journeyman Jew. They’re better at this than we are. Let’s play to our strengths.

    ROBERT J BLOCK says:

    Not sure my last comment made it in, but these gentile scribbles are hopeless. It isn’t that simple.

    Jewish rabbi disguised as Professor of Literature or Sociology University of Wisconsin, circa 1936. He writes a seminal monograph: The Beauty of Ugliness. He recruits graduate students who revere him like Hess revered the Fuhrer. They recruit graduate students. Monographs and books flow about the Beauty of Ugliness. It is isothermically annealed into the zeitgeist.

    I was taught by a third generation Straussean. He was laser focused on transmitting the wisdom of the great rabbi (I switched to Economics and better rabbis).

    OK, what do we do? Sam Francis gets fired from a second rate paper, makes a marginal living, dies from a lack of health benefits in a slum. NR 90s purge victims follow pretty much the same path, though Derb escapes and survives. He had marketable skills and savings as a Wall Street Quant. The rest found their gutters.

    So a white gentile gets an idea: grow beards, wear hats with horns. Standard. He writes a column. He writes a book. He has no acolytes, no grad students. It takes multiple generations and the collaboration of hundreds if not thousands to actually get people to grow beards and wear hats with horns.

    In this respect, our host, Professor MacDonald was a bit of a miracle. He had the post. He had tenure. He was circled and besieged so that he would not acquire a following and academic descendants.

    Our scribbles will die poor and alone except for Derb, God bless him, and Professor MacDonald, our Strauss.

    Patents. Engineering. Wealth creation. That is our path.

Comments are closed.