If he could see his birthplace of Rotterdam today

2,635 words

Just as The Orthodox Church has gotten something of a pass in WN as “the good Christianity”, largely from the huge demographic with no vested interest in those countries between Russia and Germany but rather viewing them as historical inconveniences, so too, it seems, Alexander Dugin’s a-racial and confused “traditionalist theory” gains some currency among a similar demographic – that is, it curries favor with those not definitively White Nationalist in a comprehensive sense, but Russian or German nationalists, Christians and Jews.

Dugin’s appeal to a Russian/German alliance against the universal liberalism coming out of America is enough to gain a hearing from the legion of Hitler fetishists looking to keep alive the subject matter of inter-European animus of the world wars. Therefore, despite the fact that Dugin is not a racial nationalist, he might be held in some positive light by those nostalgically yearning for a revised Molotov-Ribbentrop deal. In addition, his appeal to Traditionalism, Christianity and a pre-modern foundationalism can be enough to gain approval from wailing modernists, those for whom the European race is a peripheral matter or even to be discarded, those with a bent for scientistic objectivity; or for Christianity and Judaism. But as it eschews the crucial issue of race it all but guarantees an arbitrary upshot, perpetuating the very modernity it purports to be against, culminating in divisive, fratricidal inter-European conflict in reaction as terms of interest, accountability, ecology, and infliction are not dealt with honestly.

Thus, Dugin’s outmoded proposal for a return to Traditionalism, Orthodoxy and pre-modern foundationalism as sufficient counters to universal liberalism is probably getting more consideration and respect than it merits theoretically. While it is good that he opposes “universal liberalism” it is not enough.

With the benefit of advanced cosmology, we can see in Dugin’s quest the view of wailing modernists - ones at a loss in the disorder of modernity.  Not knowing what to do, they seek stability in returning the folk to quaint traditions while, apparently, intellectuals are to reboot the quest for abstract foundations. It is ironic that it is this very quest which led to the upheaval of ultra-relativism to begin with.

In the ABSOLUTE BEGINNING as Dugin describes it. And it will end in upheaval, turmoil and destruction for our people again: because he does not make race and its subcategories (not just Russian and German civic nationalism) the reconstructive classification - as it would be if mediated by White Nationalists, on a human scale between the abstract semi-transcendent patterns (meaning transcendent of moment, episode and close relationship, not transcendent of empirical reality) and the concreta of particular moments; mediated in systemic relation between the one White race and its many national and other sub-divisions. That is, proper, post modern WN, as it would not presume objectivity (as Christianity does as well) to the point where it outstrips concern for race, would manage the relative interests of our White nationals, but not be quite so relative as to arbitrarily put our interests at risk to search for absolutes - a myopic pursuit that reflexively effects hyper-relativism.

A return to tradition alone (let alone the tradition of Christianity) is not enough to hold up to post modern performance requirements. Not all things revealed by modern pursuit are wrong, of course, many benign truths have been revealed. Competence in post modernity requires not only the appreciation and use of those positive changes, but maintenance of the ongoing capacity for modernist innovation; at the same time we must note the truth that of course, not all change is good; that modernity has a way of perpetuating upheaval by valuing almost exclusively what is new (“this is no longer new and therefore it is no longer ‘valuable”); and ensconcing an oxymoronic requirement for identity - “be different so you can fit in.”

The way to handle this modernist destruction and its paradoxic requirements is in the hermeneutic turn and its processes in liberation from the either/or of modernity’s lineal pursuit or hidebound and rigid dependence upon traditional forms -  particularly as either are unreliable against the knowledge and practical necessities of today’s topsy turvey; which includes dealing with adversaries informed in ways that outflank many aspects of tradition or modernity.

Nevertheless, as I have noted before, competence in post modernity requires that one, or one people, be able to reconstruct traditional practices (to participate where they are at least benign), to reconstruct traditional and ancient forms of our people without the pangs of self-loathing that they are not “new” and “conformist” (because they are done deliberately, with awareness and capability of acting alternatively - thus, able to consciously choose to not participate).

Most crucially, of course, where it comes to the genetics of our people, clearly we should prefer reconstruction of our physical types evolved over tens of thousands of years rather than endeavor exotic mixes. Here Dugin’s non-mention of race and genetics as central-most to any tradition to be maintained (a tradition of genetics revealed by liberal, modernist science) is particularly suspect.

But while we can reconstruct helpful traditions, wince while participating in ones which are corny but relatively harmless, his advocacy of Christianity cannot be looked upon as deep tradition to be protected as protective of Whites from an evolutionary standpoint - quite the opposite, it is in fact, rightfully looked upon as an agency of modernity and liberalism that has been imposed upon our race in relatively recent times; and not one which serves White interests by any regular reading of its texts. Christianity is not the place to redouble traditionalism. That would bind-in the very roots of modern liberalism.

Traditionalism alone will not suffice in any case.

Take the example of “traditional woman” as opposed to the “feminist woman.”

Are traditional women strictly the answer? Of course not. Those women who are too bound to traditional requirements will often have unreasonable expectations of men to perform sufficiently; and to achieve in the traditional gender role of a man where White men are besieged as a matter of routine - where in fact, they have no stable traditional performance requirements to rely on within the disorder of modernity – they are obstructed, often by their own women; and especially if they achieve they are besieged, often by their own women. But there are many reasons why cooperative means have to be worked out and why that is not going to happen by merely telling women and men to just get back to tradition. Our traditions have been susceptible to imbalance, manipulation and runaway.

The traditional woman will not have as much practice in cultivating resource to be empathetic to the difficulties of contemporary performance requirements for men; and not as able to participate, to cooperate toward making a relationship work in a practical sense. She is tapping her foot: her reward in truth, made fickle by the individualism of the times, her un-kept virtue, her motherhood and home cooked meals, to her traditional thinking enough - and may be enough, if he can make enough money, or is in some other way over-compelling, and if he is able to overcome the endlessly available wimp (modernist male) or pig (traditionalist male) attribution.

Hence, while traditionalism is a better bias in women, it is not necessarily going to create a better woman for White men than a modernist woman. And much depends upon the tradition of course - in Christianity, for example, strict race loyalty is not even a part of the “tradition.”

Negotiating fair and practical gender relations requires that White men and women are afforded the capacity to practice both traditional and modern versions of their gender role to an optimal extent, while of course favoring tradition and only that admix of balance which will produce happiness for both genders and children.

Within post modernity it is important that White women retain some possibility to develop abilities and influence which have been traditionally been looked upon as male domains so that they can be more fully human, have some possibility for empathy and meaningful cooperation – able to assist in our plight as White men. It is also crucial to innovate a platform where the biases, assumptions and overcompensations of their default privileges are tested, checked, held accountable before the puerile among get out of control for their proclivity for liberalism and incitement to genetic competition; exacerbated by pandering from all sides in modernity’s disorder of racial classification and breach of its accountability. This platform is not available to the traditional man eager to sock anybody on the jaw who questions the virtue of the little lady.

In addition, it is crucial that White men, provided they are willing to separate and fight for the race, be attributed basic intrinsic value and being. I do not mean being effeminate or slothful, free of accountability, but afforded the warrant to pursue optimal masculinity (along with sanity and fairness in relation to our women), the kind of White masculinity that allows for sublimation and intelligence; as opposed to the sheer confidence of hyper-masculinity (e.g. the kind that blacks display), a confidence that both puerile traditional and modernist females are inclined to adore to runaway - a hyper-confidence that is in contrast not only to empathy (including empathy for our fellow Whites) but in contrast to intellectual inquiry and innovation - the authentic way of White men that is not represented by Dugin’s premodernism and Traditionalism.

Thus, if a critical view of what I say would suggest that I am not being descriptive enough, I would not necessarily agree. While I do think that the (puerile, in particular) White female position has too much power nowadays, there are certain activities and requirements where gender is not particularly important. I am indeed basing this on an estimation of what is the case for the biology of our sexual differentiation; and what ought to be -

Yes, it is somewhat speculative to suggest that White men have been after, in need of and ought to be granted more grounds of being (midtdasein). But it requires by definition that they participate, when they are able, in the protection of the borders of their group from interlopers.

Nevertheless, in respect for their having co-evolved this far they should be granted the benefit of the doubt of basic intrinsic value. Again, these basic levels of need and stress can be alleviated with voluntary enclaves of sex as sacrament (and tests for actual merit can be provided to assess what is the case of their merit).

White men pursuing actualization from a position of equanimity are likely to yield better results in achievement and merit of influential position than the products of desperation, anxiety or mere reservation of influential position because of tradition.

Traditional gender roles should be favored on bias of course, but there needs to be enough flexibility for White couples to cope with the disordering effects of modernity’s performance requirements. That is a difference from the Traditionalism and pre-modern foundationalism that Dugin promotes. Post modernity properly understood allows for the flexibility to reconstruct traditional forms along with capacity to disengage and negotiate innovation where necessary. In the case of gender roles, it should not entail de-sexing - just the opposite, it should resexualize our men and women in the authentic forms of their genders.

Our flexibility of gender roles and choice afforded is a huge advantage that we have over Islam. The crucial addition of sex as sacrament - enclaves devoted to monogamy, and a category for the even more radical choice of one partner for life - will stave-off cynicism by creating deliberate choice for Whites, more incentive to participate and more reason to fight. This is an authentic European religious grounding also crucial as Islam and Judaism etc., engage a religious war against us, strengthen their numbers and conviction by having ensconced similar traditional piety of their own.

Lest it appear at first blush to some that I am advocating feminism, I am not. Feminism tends to pit women against men and of course I am rather after symbiotic, complementary, cooperative and balanced relations of and between the genders.

The limits of traditional gender roles are just one example of a pitfall of traditionalism. However, my main concern is that Dugin does not represent post modernity accurately.

Whereas Dugin seeks “THE ABSOLUTE BEGINNING”

Presumably this is a tradition and absolute beginning beyond race or where race is not the binding factor. But whatever it is, it is “necessary” to be so un-pragmatic because:

“The human passes to the infra-human realm, and to sub-individual domains. And here he encounters virtuality, as a dream of sub-individuality, the freedom from anything. This is the evaporation of the human, and brings about the Empire of nothingness as the last word in the total victory of liberalism. Postmodernism prepares the terrain for that post-historic, self-referential recycling of non-sense.”

Well, not the post modern reconstruction of our race and its various nationalisms.

Dugin still speaks of post modernity as the nonsensical “dada” movement that Jews promote its portrayal as – which, in truth, is not post modernity but really nothing more than more modernity, following modernity to its logical extreme - the upshot of pure objectivism into hyper-relativism, change for change sake, being different so you can fit in, etc., rather than taking the post modern turn to deliberately reconstruct traditional forms or pursue modern innovation where optimally serving our interests.

That is to say, our proper gauge is not a return to medieval traditionalism. Rather, an optimal gauge is provided in the ongoing reconstruction of our ancient forms and adjudication of optimal innovation, which occurs between mere objectivism and relativism, and in the human scale of our interests as White nationals, our subcategories recognized as valid ecological parts and necessary diversity of our whole -

White Nationalism proper tends to see these things aright. It sees that those who might clamor for war with Russia are likely to be either Jews, who want conflict as punishment for Russia’s defense of Syria, Iran, antagonism of Jewish oligarchs etc, or a clamoring from those adjacent countries viewed in narcissistically modernist terms by Russia as mere subsets of Russia; where Russia recognizes-Not their historical qualm and difference from Russia, rather their differences are run roughshod for Russia’s own unrecognized universalized tradition and absolutized beginning. What this means is that conflict with Russia is best avoided by recognizing the Jewish hand in any such agitation (war is a Jew harvest) and also by recognizing that neighboring nationals have legitimate differences with Russia, that have been quelled brutally in tradition; hence must be handled with deftness that mere tradition does not afford if these historical differences and grievances are not to give rise to overcompensating reaction.

It is entirely unnecessary that there be war with Russia. And White Nationals have provided a huge olive branch to Russia as White brethren; whereas the tradition of American patriotism that views Russia as an enemy lingers primarily among Jewish inspired American neo-cons and those nationals with legitimate but unrecognized differences with Russia; subterranean anti-Russian passions that the Jews could fan to instigate inter-European violence once again if not dealt with openly and honestly.

The Belarusian nation, language and culture and the Ukrainian nation, language and culture should have greater recognition and autonomy - which of course means neither becoming enveloped in the EU, Jewish interests or other forces seeking to blend away European nations into internationalism.

These are among White nationals with a historical grievance that could cause problems for Russia if their differences are not respected in post modern terms. If looked at either in “Traditionalist” or modernist terms, they are quite the same as Russians – an oversight that is likely to bury festering resentment, end in misdirected backlash and overcompensation to be exploited by Jewish interests, riding the tide of divide and conquer. Only a proper understanding of post modernity can frame resolution to the interests of indigenous European peoples, which includes Russians.

...................

Monoculturalism meets Rockefeller (and eats him)

White Post Modernity (Post Modernity defined in accordance with White interests)

Mono-cultural society = all people are seen as pretty much the same; therefore, those not fitting in the world view are less than human - worthy of the communal stew pot. ..or in the present situation, as we move toward globalization, i.e. ‘one world’, we find ourselves in a place where “racists” might be thought of as less than human. *

Traditional society = ethnocentrism, in and out groups. The king and god looks-after one’s own people. There are other groups and they have different ways. They are treated not as inhuman but as outsiders and with a different set of concerns.

Modernity = a quest for universal foundations; seeing all people as pretty much the same (or comparable by commensurate standards), their wreckage among all change is a necessary hazard on the way in Progress to foundational truth-

tended to be oblivious to good coordination with other people because of its narcissistic propensity to see all peoples as being essentially the same.

held inherent contradictions - “be different so you can fit in”

and a pernicious cycle for its valuation of change for the “new” - work to change - celebrate change - this is no longer new - work to change - grinding away at traditional forms in perpetuity.

Post Modernity = recognition that change does not necessarily lead to progress, unshakable foundations, or good things - one of those negative effects is profound disorder, hyper-relativism and the lack of accountability that comes with it (incl. destruction of Whites); hence, post-modernity tries for optimal balance between being sure to reconstruct one’s people and benign traditions, recognizing that there are outsiders, with different ways, but it also also gauges change and where beneficial, makes innovation. It has the ability to reconstruct traditional practices without “the pangs of self loathing” for the appearance of conformity, since where it participates in traditional practices it does so knowingly. I.e., it can also disengage from traditional practices and make modernist innovation where advantageous.

I don’t know what is so hard to understand or why the value to Whites is hard to see

Jews wouldn’t do anything so dishonest as to misrepresent these ideas so Whites couldn’t understand them properly and use them effectively, would they? They’d never promote liberal modernity to the detriment of Whites instead, would they?

Of course they would: Jewish and Jewish approved academics have been promoting a hyperbolic form of Modernity (at least regarding Whites) as if it were “Postmodernity”

..........

Dugin seems to be making an important mistake in going with the Jewish prescribed “dada” definition of postmodernity. That is what prompted me to make this post. So that we can make use of the post modern turn, affording ourselves the advantages of traditional reconstruction and modernist innovation, where best for White people.

* Note: Bowery’s stipulation that those who will not allow for, but rather insist on breaching, freedom from association might lose their human status appears to be a monocultural rule worth establishing.