So, the Patriarchy reviewed a blog post [edit 07 Jan 2014: by Peter Taylor, Dec 2012, at link] concerning the creation of religion. Henry, or some other person, linked to it on Twitter [why do we participate in something that sounds like “chatter” and makes us think of gossip], and from there, or perhaps for some unrelated reason, Neoreaction became very vocal about how one cannot create a religion from scratch on demand. We agree. One cannot create a religion without antecedent upon demand. We state this affirmatively for clarity. Religions arise from precedent organically.
These brief statements are nonetheless insufficient to describe the coming storm. Western society and culture circa 2015 has pushed to breaking the mores that served it well through many millennia. Among the exposed weaknesses are
- Broad acceptance of the substitution of homoerotic coupling for sexual coupling.
- General disregard of biological limitations imposed upon women (and men).
- Dogmatic insistence upon equality of outcome (for some) based upon purported equal competence of individuals.
- Rejection of the line of descent for both rule of law and rule of conscience.
These ideas oppose those notions Neoreaction generally espouses, namely,
- The value of fecund sexual marriage and the extended family relationships created thereby.
- Natural division of labor and authority according to sexual dimorphism within humanity.
- Recognition of the varied and stratified quality of human individuals within the race of men.
- Advocacy for traditional forms of government, divergent according to the heritage of men.
We all presume that the former foibles will eventually overcome the capacity of Western civilization to absorb debauchery and debasement. We all presume that we are correct in our hypothesis that the latter fortes sustain civilizations, including Western civilization, and that abandonment of those latter values for the former leads to collapse. If we are correct, one of two ends awaits us: successor cultures or barbarism.
The danger most pressing upon North America, for that is the continent upon which we live, and therefore the one about which we should concentrate our concern, is the very real possibility that all we have built will fall to ruin. Our culture may collapse under the pressure of international hybridization. Our stock may be subsumed into a broad genetic pool not equal to our ancestors upon the presumption that our blood heritage has no bearing upon our success. Our wealth may be distributed far and wide according to the premise that it is effectively limitless and renewable. Our lands may be freely ceded to aliens escaping civilization collapse within the homelands from which they flee. Even our own (former) slave race, imported here for that purpose, is being displaced by less demanding subjects, unwilling or unable to demand better treatment. Eventually, those that remain will reach a breaking point. We believe that the steel of restraint within the race that created our North American civilization has surpassed its yield and approaches its tensile limit.
Others within Neoreaction justly observe that there is no return to the past, just as steel cannot resume its original shape upon exceeding its yield strain. However, these men fail to recognize that the greater danger comes with tensile failure within the resisting system. Each yield to stress induces fatigue, increases the probability of fracture, and prohibits a return to a previous state. When the restraint finally fractures, it must be replaced. When once a restraint has fractured, it is replaced with a stronger restraint, often a restraint so strong that yield is not possible, and all paths to the restrain are likewise strengthened so there is no possibility of failure.
For North American civilization, what will this entail? Examine the previous restraints so far demolished.
- Non-sexual coupling will likely become utterly forbidden under pain of death. Some among us would welcome this new social mores and punishment. We caution that such justice may be so blind that it does not recognize innocence.
- The place of women and men within society may become utterly fixed beyond any sensible exception to norms.
- The natural talents of men may be ignored despite all supporting evidence, to be instead favor heritage and purported breeding.
- The free assembly of men may be suppressed, even of men seeking redress of grievance.
What has this to do with neo-religion? Mark Yuray advocates that “we choose to keep building [up]on (or at least, sustaining) our heritage, and avoid the temptation to toss it away in favor of our own modernist inventions.” In support of this plea, he offers this argument, among others.
If Christianity’s collapse merits its rejection for something new, then by the same logic the Englishman’s, or Frenchman’s, or Swede’s collapse merits their rejection for something new. I am not willing to leave behind Christianity, nor am I willing to leave behind Englishmen, Frenchmen or Swedes. All four are corrupted, weak, crippled and flailing, but they are not dead, and to abandon them would be a dishonorable breach of every imaginable Western moral code that has ever existed, pagan, Christian or otherwise. Instead of throwing the Swede to the Somalis, and the Christian to the leftists, how about we just teach the Swede about human biodiversity, and the Christian about the degenerative ratchet?
Our objection to this specious argument follows thusly.
Has Christianity collapsed, or not? If it has collapsed, there is nothing else but a corpse to abandon. If it has not collapsed, then we are obligated to examine its condition and repair (or heal) it as pragmatism requires. For, unlike Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Swedes (though we ought to take care we not confuse a tongue with a people, and make the same mistake as the Progressive), Christianity is not a people, it is an engine or a beast in service for a people. If it is to be of service for a people, then it must needs be put to service, even to the service of death, even to the most ignominious death that may be imagined. Yuray is correct to assert that some portions of Christianity may yet survive, but we must take care that we do not become so attached to the promise of salvation in a life hereafter that we damn the only lives we know with certainty. Elements of Christianity may yet survive, but what remains will be more hollow than a Norse myth if we do not carefully examine the parts and establish what can be salvaged, what must be salvaged, and those workings so integral to civilization that they must be retained, yet so hopelessly ruined that only parts obtained elsewhere, or created without antecedent upon demand by men attempting to reconstruct rather than construct upon failed foundations. The Swede already knows human biodiversity; the Somali dares not publicly admit such truth. The Christian (although not the Churchian) knows the degenerative ratchet, for what are the Books of Kings but the history of the fall of Israel and the sin of Jeroboam? The leftist cannot comprehend that the sin against God is the sin against life and living and the choice of death and dying and oblivion. How could he? When man shews him love, he sees hate. Shew him mercy and he understands condescension. Give him comfort and he feels pain. Teach him wisdom and he becomes a fool. No, we have our Swedes and our Frenchmen and our Englishmen and each righteous man knows what is required, yet he dare not call a kettle black lest he be called a pot, despite his value to all mankind and especially his kin exceeds his weight in gold.
For that, we reckon, is the value that must be retained: not the engine of our historic success, the sunk cost of a capital investment long since depreciated and degraded, but the People who use that engine for profit.
So, what is to be our approach to salvage what remains of this engine? Shall we await its utter collapse and hope for renewal or resurrection? We daresay, “No.” We know the beast is exhausted, old, and lame. It limps along, sighing and moaning, baying for mercy, yet we plead with it, whip it, castrate it, blind it, and – very occasionally – care for it. We give no thought for its offspring. Some of us even deride its cousins, calling such things impure. These are not the actions of wise men; this is the wisdom of fools. The beast is soon to die and we will have nothing sufficient appeal when we are “weary and heavy laden.” There will be no “rest for our soul[s],” there will be no “yoke upon” us from which we may learn, nothing “gentle and humble in heart.” What approaches is a world without recourse, and a faith that is no faith at all, for it is spent, wasted, as seed upon stone, as semen upon a whore’s visage.
Herein lies the division between Neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment. You men that still react must now turn to face the coming storm, the horror rising from the darkest depths. It is terrible to behold, but truth lies within those dark visions. Christianity and the West soon falls. It has no place into which it may retreat. It taught its greatest lessons to the entire globe; it has no secrets left to guard. There are no magic swords, no wizards’ incantations, not even parlor tricks remain. All has been revealed. So, the Men of the West, the Patriarchy of Ancient Lineage, must do as it has done from time immemorial. It must create anew, amaze the world, and show what can be done when the foundation rots, when earth is made sand under fortresses, and when all is lost.
Yes, there is wisdom from the ages. Men and women create children sexually. The scion reflects the ancestors. Men must lead and women must follow according to the worth of each. Yet there is nearly naught else upon which we may rely.
“Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” Perhaps. What we know is that we cannot continue without a faith. Our present faith is failing. We are obliged to contemplate what comes after.