Tag Archives: Best of Vincent

RED DAWN 40: Memory, Genius, and the Curse of the Silver Souls

RED DAWN 40: Memory, Genius, and the Curse of the Silver Souls

Memory correlates with Genius. High-IQ males tend to have an extraordinary ability to remember. Normies, by comparison, forget everything. What effect does memory have on one’s ability to know?

But memory is not to be confused with “experience.” Some people reference their “experience” or “feeling” to shut down reasoned argument. Who could be behind this fallacy?

And: Counter-signaling. White people show their class-status by rejecting the values of other classes. Uppers counter-signal middles who counter-signal proles and visa-versa all the way back. Why do we do this? When will it stop? And ultimately, whose value-system is right?



YES! WE WIN! After a grueling, 18-month campaign, in the face of bitter opposition at every turn, the God-Emperor has smashed his way into power. And the alt-right has been with him the whole way. Did we make the difference?

Reports are pouring in from around the globe: Washington, Boston, Stockholm, St. Petersburg, and Lancaster County PA. The goyim are jubilant! Greg reprises his daylong sojourn among the Amish, and Vince has some ideas about what to do next.


Intro: Greg sings Adeste Fideles. If anyone who can actually sing and audio-edit wants to redo this, feel free to appropriate it. Here’re the lyrics:



RED DAWN 16: SWPL Swede Down

RED DAWN 16: SWPL Swede Down

AI is deploying to Swemolia. Is it as bad as the Daily Mail would have us believe? Greg and Vince are in country, bringing you this SITREP from the epicenter of Afro-Islamic POZ. Maybe the US has it worse… or maybe the AI bros are suffering a case of Stockistan Syndrome.

Next time: The Malmog.


AI Academic Interview Series 9: Putin against the Atlanticists

AI Academic Interview 9: Putin against the Atlanticists

Russian geopolitics in all its intricacies. Vincent Law explains the Ukrainian situation, the 2008 war with Georgia, and political swordplay in Moscow. What is Putin doing to build Russian civil culture? He has to deal with an aggressive media, US-funded “protest” groups, and the corruption of his own officials.

Vince also discusses The Saker Theory: Putin’s coming purge of Russia’s pro-American faction, the so-called “Atlanticists.” What should the Alt-right’s position on Russia be? Are any groups in Russia our natural allies?

When you need to know about Russia, you can’t trust faggots like Anne Applebaum. But you can count on AI to bring you the most succulent morsels of Kremlinology.

The Metro Face: Cultural Differences between Russia and the West

Like all good stories, this one starts with a pretty girl. She was sitting on the bus, and there was an open seat next her. I sat down and the predictable happened. She put her head phones in, and looked away into the window. Fairly typical behavior in Russia and just about anywhere else in the world, I would venture to say.

Russians get the reputation for being cold, and unapproachable. The reason for this is primarily because, as Westerners, we tend to be accustomed to a breezy politeness that is common in most cities in the West.

Typical example:

(You’re sitting on a bus when a passenger turns to you and says:)

P: Sorry, but which stop is Tenleytown?

You: Oh, sorry, but I’m not sure. Maybe its the next one.

P: Oh thank you so much, sorry for bothering you.

You: Oh its no problem


Pretty typical exchange. Politeness and pleasantries abound. Here in St. Petersburg however, things are quite different.

(Same scenario)

You: Sorry, but which stop is the “Square of the Struggle.”

Her: *slow turn of the head followed by a long stare*

You: *nervous grin*

Her: It’s in a couple of stops.

You: Sorry to bother you, thanks for the help.

Her: Why are you sorry?

At this point, the conversation has taken a turn for the interesting. To those of you reading along at home in the States, this answer of hers should raise an eyebrow. If not, you aren’t paying close enough attention. The exchange of information has already concluded, therefor the conversation should have ended. She should have turned away to look back through the window, putting her ear buds in as she did so, while I pointedly made an effort to look straight ahead, lest she think that I am a weirdo, creep or god forbid, want to continue a conversation rather than stare aimlessly ahead. That is after all, the polite thing to do.

But it didn’t play out the way that I was expecting it to.

Instead, she continued to look at me with a look of mild disdain, as I struggled to come up with an answer. After all, why did I say I was sorry? Why do I, and everybody around me in the West say it so goddamn much? Are we really sorry? And if so, why? Do we feel that having a small conversation with someone is so painful for that other person that we must apologize for even opening our mouths? What is going on in our thought process that we feel we are somehow in the need of forgiveness? Perhaps it is just a language parasite, a word without meaning that we just insert into our conversations, for one reason or another without really thinking about it.

Who knows, but I explained that it was simply something that we say in the West, to be polite.

She arched her eyebrows and asked, “so you’re from America?” I replied that I was. And again she just looked at me, with that stern metro face. It took a lot of willpower on my part to not slip into my American default of saying, “sorry again for bothering you” flashing my 6000$ smile, and staring pointedly ahead. Instead, I stared right back at her for a bit.

A Tarzan and Jane moment if ever there was one.

Her face eventually relaxed a bit, and she complimented my Russian. “You speak good Russian for a foreigner,” she said. And just like that, I passed the test, and the conversation began to flow like the swift running waters of the Jordan, (i’ve never actually been, but I’m working on my similes, and it sounds biblical doesn’t it?), like the pent up water behind a dam suddenly being released, like a trip to the urinal after a long night of drinking… you get the point.

And it was an interesting conversation. We talked about the city, about her life and about why Americans spend so much time in the gym. (see calhoun’s beautiful rats) It was incredibly uninhibited, especially considering that we had just met. She criticized and corrected my Russian mistakes, all with a straight face and a shockingly pleasant rudeness. When it was time for me to get off, we exchanged numbers, she flashed me a smile, the first one in the entire conversation and said goodbye. (I could hear the wedding bells tolling.)

It was only afterwards, upon reflection, and several other similar encounters, that I considered what I had inadvertently stumbled across: the different understanding of politeness found in Russia vs. the West and the reason for our perception of the Russians as rude people.

Politeness that comes from a position of weakness is not respected here.

Artificial self-abasement is not encouraged here.

Artificiality is not the norm here.

People don’t go online after a day of pent up resentment and post passive-aggressive Facebook rants or snarky Twitter comments with those nauseating hashtags (#gagworthy). They just up and call you out on your bullshit, right then and there. And they expect that you will hold your ground, and defend yourself, again right then and there. They expect you to tell them what you actually think, not mouth off polite platitudes as we are accustomed to in the West, where we are encouraged above all else to be civil. The world might be burning to pieces around us, bombs might be going off on the front lawn, Lenin and an army of commie-zombies may have risen from the grave, but for god’s sakes watch what you say, you don’t want to offend anybody do you?? There are children around who might hear you! Let’s be sensitive and remember that not all commies are zombies!

You get the point.

In short, I have come to the realization that we simply have different value systems, Russians and the West. One peoples values honesty, the other politeness and propriety. And to be completely honest, I think every American should have a conversation with a Russian in Russia, just once in their life. They might find it, funnily enough, deeply liberating. Just gotta get past the metro face.

RED DAWN SPECIAL: Where Aryans Dare

They look like Nazis 2

Where Aryans Dare. AI’s debut on rightstuff.biz. Give it a listen, goyim.

Vincent Law and Gregory Ritter star in “Where Aryans Dare.” From post-soviet shitholes to South African shit-shafts, why does the third world have to suck so much? The bros are on a mission to find out. They scour the planet in search of the ultimate answer. Who is behind it all?

Cargo shipping down. Related: Maersk downscaling.

Trump accuses Obama of using Fed to keep economy afloat.

Thilo Sarrazin “Germany Abolishes Itself” intro. Trans. Greg Ritter.

What is Identitarianism? Part 5

Aaaand the dismount. Will he stick it?

It is hidden from the undiscerning public, but discontent is building in the anonymous safe harbors online. We saw it with GamerGate, as young men finally said they had enough with Cultural Marxism being forcibly injected into their favorite pastime. We saw it in the aftermath of the Ferguson and Baltimore riots as average whites, fed up with the media narrative, began to articulate their frustration with political correctness, and the biased coverage of the riots. We see it belatedly, with the renewed calls to end illegal immigration, from the dark horse and potential political juggernaut, Donald Trump. The man clambered up to a podium, lifted his head up and simply said, “We’re building a wall.” A million hearts fluttered, and everyone in the establishment was shocked and appalled by the visceral and instant surge that this political nobody experienced in the polls. After all, who could have guessed that native whites are not brimming with enthusiasm about the prospect of becoming minorities within their own country? Having been ignored by all parties, these white voters found their diamond in the rough with Donald Trump. As this declaration is being written, they have not yet Stumped the Trump, and Donald Trump continues to demand, much to the chagrin of the political, cultural and business establishment that the illegal immigrants, “have to go back.” We wait with eager anticipation to see how far this man can single-handedly push the Overton window, ready to pick up the baton, and carry it even further.

Following the slew of shootings, of the past couple of years, it is becoming readily apparent that many of our young men feel estranged from a society that is alien and hostile to them. Often times this frustration transforms into blinding rage and nihilistic despair, compelling individuals like Dylan Storm Roof to commit acts of mass-murder. Identitarianism will be a positive force in the lives of young men with no outlet for their frustration and anger. It can serve as the steam valve to make sure that killing sprees born out of feelings of cultural estrangement and fueled by beta male rage no longer occur at the nauseating frequency that they do now. It will give young men the guidance they need to embrace the age-old tenants of Masculinity, which our modern society has insidiously scrubbed out of the heads of our young boys, through feminized education and toxic representations of masculinity in the media. In our movement must be an implicit understanding that we must be men in whom the old ways have joined the new, adapted to the realities of the modern world, and yet not forgetting the age old tenants of tradition. We are not bible-thumping Sunday pastors who want to scare you into celibacy rather we base our movement on the timeless tenants of masculinity.

Man needs Purpose.
Man needs a Tribe
Man needs a Castle, and finally,
Man needs a Woman,

Self-realization is a fundamental tenant of our movement. And as much as Identitarianism will be grounded in the understanding of the much-maligned principle of ethnic identity, we also declare war against the effeminacy and feel-good sophistry of our age in favor of the values of masculinity and stalwart honesty.

Identitarianism is the long-awaited answer and the chance for reform. Identitarianism can break through and remold the bizarre shibboleth of “right wing” policies that comprise the modern conservative movement, smoking out the charlatans in the process. Identitarianism holds an open hand, palm facing upwards to the suppressed white majority of America, ready to pull it up off of its knees. In the other hand, a branding iron, red-hot and forged in the furnace of our discontent. A shiv pressed against the ribs of the current political paradigm, smoking and crackling, dangerous and life-threatening. Let this declaration serve as a warning to the hyenas and the jackals, the hucksters and harlequins that promote white displacement and genocide: Your time will come, and we will hold you to account.

To the slumbering white majority of the West we say the following: Acknowledge your European ancestry. Embrace your whiteness. Become who you are, and stake your claim on this Earth.

back to part 4

back to part 1

The United Russia Party

During my trip to Russia, a delegation from the United Russia ruling party came by my university to give a talk about their platform. Seeing as we were a “liberal arts college” they didn’t get a warm reception. But to those who were willing to listen, one could learn a lot. Let’s start from the top.

Is United Russia Conservative?

Most people, if prompted to answer where they believe United Russia fits on the political spectrum would say that the group is conservative. But according to Huntington’s definition of conservatism, United Russia cannot be considered conservative. Huntington’s thesis is that conservatism can only be a purely situational rather than ideational ideology—a defense of any existing institutions against fundamental challenge. In other words, conservatism is a knee-jerk reaction to whatever trend of progressivism is alive and well at the time, without an all-encompassing idea at its core. The United Russia party openly agrees with Huntington’s analysis and instead considers itself traditional as opposed to “conservative”.

However, can it be said that UR is even traditionalist? According to the party ideology, and the presentation by the representatives, UR is firmly wedded to many key concepts of modernity and the liberal project. In fact, UR considers itself the only force that can save classical liberalism from itself, a strange claim for a party that considers itself “traditional.”

They claim the title of defenders of real liberal values which they claim are now dead. From a conceptual point of view, this seems to be a either a convenient escape from logic or perhaps a different understanding of the term “traditional.” Perhaps there is a new understanding of traditionalism that is defined by UR as being “diet liberalism” or “liberalism lite” that makes it more palatable to the Russian public.

The Individual vs “The Persona”

One of the more interesting ideas advanced by UR is the concept of a “persona,” not an individual. They make the point that a “person is realized only in the context of society not as a disembodied individual. Mass culture is creating a culture of individual consumers,” United Russia says, and here they have a point. At least in the West, the United States has embarked on a project following the end of the Second World War and arguably even earlier, to transform the American citizen into the American consumer. United Russia asks the hypothetical about what the future will look like, “when we are all interchangeable consumers, when all identity is relative, when we can sell everything that we own as a culture to transnationals. Whether this is the future of disembodied individualism that we want…”

Their criticism of modern consumer culture extends to the ideas of modern liberalism as well. Neoliberalism as a model they say, is one that is not needed in Russia, and that we have to learn from the cultural suicide of the West. They came out swinging against neo-liberalism saying that, “neoliberals say you will win if you sell out, and they to convince you to be willing to sell everything, all in favor of economics. Replace everyone with Vietnamese if you want efficiency. This is the end goal of the neo-liberal model, and we believe that it is an insane experiment; rather all social experiments must be grounded in history.”

Surprisingly enough, they made an argument about the need for multiculturalism, but not in the way that most progressives would consider. If a country has a right to self-determinism, then what can we say about neo-liberalism, “when it is involved in the colonization of traditional cultures?”

A Case against Democracy

It would seem that United Russia does not believe in democracy as the highest governing principle of a state. They did not come right out and say it, but I believe the interpretation is correct, if one is wililing to read between the lines of the rhetoric. For example, one of the representatives of United Russia said that, “democracy can be manipulated, like a retard; special interest groups can derail the entire project, what is more important is the narod.” This draws obvious parallels with the German idea of the volk. They continue: “Democracies can become easily manipulated by transnational corporations, foreign NGOs, or corrosive ideals.” United Russia makes the point, (take it as you will) that they are not against the idea of democracy categorically, rather, “what United Russia is against, is the manipulation of identity… in the name of any ideology that is alien to that people.” A criticism of democracy is hard to find in the modern world, where the idea of popular government has trumped all others in debates about the nature of government, but it seems that United Russia is making the case for a national project not necessarily based on democratic values.

Religion and Tradition

When asked how many people in attendance actually were practicing Orthodox Christians, only a smattering of people actually raised their hands. This is fairly typical among the youth of most developed countries, and it seems to be a valid criticism to point out that among the population at large, religiosity is not that common. Therefor a party that is basing its appeal on “traditional values rooted in Orthodoxy,” seems to be only appealing to the minority of faithful in an otherwise post-communist country. The counter to this point, that I personally found convincing, is that the question is not necessarily one of religious practice (going to church every Sunday) or even faith (blasphemy I know), but rather self-identity. They make the comparison to China, still ostensibly Communist, but which has people who have the Chinese and Confucian values and realize the value of traditional religion to their self-identity-like. No one could say that the average Chinese does not realize that he is Chinese first and communist second. This is not a unique phenomenon, and Russians, just like the Chinese, need a self-identity grounded in history and tradition.

A Unique Take on the Recent History of Russia

People thought synergy between countries would continue, but this was not the case as the United States decided to pursue hegemony and rifts developed between the SCO countries. To put in perspective the loss incurred by Russia, Ukraine took 60% of the industry with it during the breakup of the Soviet Union, as well as 50 million citizens. The rift between Ukraine and Russia has in fact been called a “tragic development” by both Putin and his party on several occasions.

Interestingly enough, they seemed very well read on Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations,” making the point that the split in Ukraine has been predicted for a while now and that this entire crisis is about deciding what Russia is in the post-soviet world. However, on the important questions, such as what Russia’s future looks like in the 21st century, their stance is unclear. Almost as opaque are the answers of United Russia about the border question.

When I asked about Russia’s boundaries, the answer was not what I expected.

The representatives said, “For now, Russia’s boundaries, but boundaries change. It is not to say that we want to fight for new ones, but further integration is possible. Take Kazakhstan as an example. We cannot wage wars to expand markets, but further synchronization with Kazakhstan and the other ‘stans’ is possible.”

When pressed about Ukraine, however, there was a lot of dodging, and roundabout answers. It was only when they were pressed further by the audience that they finally gave out the party line. “We support federalization of Ukraine with greater independence for the Lughansk and Donetsk oblasts.” No mention of Novorossiya, of independence, of possible integration with Russia, nothing. Here they toed the party line very carefully, but that does not mean that they may not have other convictions privately.

A Critic

A student stood up and asked a long and impassioned question about economic opportunity. She mentioned how she did not feel that she could have a career here as a student of politics and with opinions that run contrary to the ruling regime. She said that she was planning to leave for the West soon, and seek self-realization there. I will let the United Russia answer stand on its own here. Their appeal to the idea of the narod and the common folk is clear here, and so is their refusal to backpedal.

“Conservatism needs a structure of realization, just like liberalism, and if you want to immigrate away and realize yourself in another country, you are in a minority. Most people can’t do that, it is only people with a certain level of prosperity and income independence that have that option available to them. We need to care about the people that don’t have that option first and foremost.”

This quote more than any other I believe, highlights who United Russia’s voter base is, and who it tries to focus its appeal to. Needless to say, it is not the liberal intelligentsia of the university crowd.

Feminized Christianity

Coming to college, upon the recommendation of a blue-pilled beta friend, I joined an organization called Chi Alpha. They were the real deal: crying and shaking, guitar-strumming, tambourine-banging, born again evangelists. But being an immigrant, and clueless to boot, I had no idea what kind of craziness to expect. Full disclosure, in my beta boy angst, I was easily seduced by the easy smiles and talk of community, acceptance, and Christian life. I even went on a retreat with the group where I saw feminized Christianity at its best. Luckily I made it out unscathed, with a tale or two for you, dear readers.


I’ll never forget the time that a middle-aged (read: post-wall) speaker came to talk to us on special invitation. She lamented how God had not yet sent her a man and described how hard she had worked at her career and how she had a few men that walked out on her earlier in her life, leading her to take a break from dating. She claimed that she found God at this time, leading her to only pursue men in a Christian manner, which I assume meant not frequenting the same dive bars.

Either way, this new “Christian approach” to dating didn’t seem to pan out, because the subject of her talk was all about God not giving her a man and how it must just not be her time. The trials that this poor spinster faced elicited comparisons with Job and Rachel from the Old Testament. I remember how her voice trembled, and I couldn’t help feeling how awful those men were for dumping her while she was trying to pursue a Christian lifestyle.

She even talked about the debt that she had accumulated from going to graduate school in her early 30s, and how she hoped that God would help her find a way to pay off her debt. I wonder how much the first goal and the second goal were related in her mind. As always, the “hook up culture” was decried and the disrespect for women by males at the university was constantly a subject of pontification. Naturally, the true causes of the hook-up culture were never addressed, the broken nature of the old dating model never mentioned, and slutty behavior by women never called to account. But hey, what do you expect from gynocentric feminized Christianity?

The girls all shed thick, heavy tears and nodded emphatically about how hard it was to find a good Christian boy to fall in love with. Needless to say, there were Christian boys all around them, only none of them seemed capable of igniting a fire in their loins. I wonder why. I’ll venture to say selection bias had something to do with it.

Whiny femme-boys with no applied charisma skill (game) trying to justify their involuntary celibacy as part of a wholesome Christian lifestyle don’t make college girls swoon. But rather than confronting their sexual marketplace value and working to improve their game, their character, and hell, maybe even working out a bit, they instead found religion as a balm for their broken hearts. Here’s the pitch:

Pastor: Do you feel out of place and rejected by girls?

College boy: Boy, do I!

Pastor: Never get invited to parties?

College boy: Not really…

Pastor: Come join our cult club and Jesus will take all the pain away.

College boy: Maybe I’ll get a cute Christian girlfriend if I’m good and God rewards me!

I only saw one match-up occur between two Chi Alpha members: a reformed slut and a football player. Full disclaimer, the girl was a 3 or a 4 on a good day, and on the big retreat to Virginia beach, broke down during discussion time and sobbed out a story about how she had lots of pre-marital sex with her boyfriend and felt abused because of it.

Now a black football player, at any university, is a prime catch for any girl, and this guy wasn’t bad looking at all. His big problem though: he was too nice and had no game. Naturally he tried with several girls when he came to college, and flamed out spectacularly several times, leading him to join Chi Alpha as the savior intended. After being “set up” with this damaged goods “Christian,” the football player became the toast of the club, a shining example of what every good Christian ought to do. The fact that this 3/10 had had more sex with more partners in her short 19 years of life than he ever would probably in his entire life never seemed to bother him.

How noble of all of these angsty betas to renounce their involuntary celibacy for a voluntary one—the sacrifice must have been immense. Here is my main point about these religious groups: they are INCREDIBLY damaging to young men because, like youth groups of the past, it puts a skewed moral burden on many young men and actively prevents them from developing their skills with women.

The sexual marketplace has changed, and all those beta traits that church groups used to foster in their young men are totally useless. You know that hottie sitting next to you in the pew? Chances are she’s banging some random dude she met at the university pub on Saturday and sitting there talking to you about “Christian values” on Sunday (true story). Why? Because its alpha or die, dear readers.

And as long as she continues mouthing platitudes and shedding tears during the group sing along, no one will know. Even if she should choose to confess her sins or something, I guarantee you that she would be forgiven. Evangelicals are predominantly female. Evangelicals love reformed sluts. Jesus has been re-branded as the perfect white knight poster boy for the feminized Christianity cult that I see in America. Try pulling that shit as a guy who got drunk and had a one night stand, you’d be standing before an honor council by the end of the day.

According to Chi Alpha and evangelical groups like it aimed almost exclusively at youth, one would think that Christ came down from heaven for one reason and one reason only: to prevent underage drinking and pre-marital sex. In a nutshell, this was the point of the group. Any group that takes awkward betas and reinforces their tendencies to the point of associating religious holiness with social awkwardness deserves to be purged. There are enough conflicting messages from Hollywood, clueless parents, left-wing school administrators without so called religious “conservatives” jumping on the bandwagon and skewering men as well.

Where was the tradition? The whole, “women be loyal and submissive to your husbands,” “don’t whore around in your 20s and expect a husband when you’re overweight, pushing 40 and drowning in student debt” stuff? It wasn’t progressive enough I guess. Our university’s brand of evangelicalism even avoided condemning gays the same way their southern brethren would. I asked several times about the church’s position on the homosexual lifestyle, and got no replies, probably because we had many homosexuals in the congregation. Pretty conservative, amirite?

There was nothing truly Christian about the experience. The movement felt like it had been spawned in the early 90s and that Jesus had died as early as the 9/11 attacks with only a tenuous connection at best to the actual crucifixion and the story of the early church. Long story short, it wasn’t for me, and I decided I needed a church based in tradition and not drowning in progressive platitudes, and based on the “make it up as you go along” attitude of the Protestant tradition.

Orthobros Unite!
Orthobros Unite!

A short epilogue:

After I overcame my weird, guilty, religious phase, stopped showing up (I only went for about 3 months), and read up on some game material, I turned right around and banged a couple of those girls. Praise be to God.

Emperor Julian’s Failed Conservativism

From 361 to 363 AD, Rome was ruled by emperor Julian. If you know your Roman history, at the time, Rome had already converted to Christianity with the Emperor Constantine, who had accepted Christianity on his deathbed. When Julian came to power, he brought with him an agenda of reforms that would restore the greatness of the Roman empire. In his mind, it only made sense to start with political and religious reforms. He blamed Christianity for the state of the Roman empire and he also blamed Constantine for the state of the administration and for having abandoned the traditions of the past.

From WikiPlebia:

He restored pagan temples which had been confiscated since Constantine’s time, or simply appropriated by wealthy citizens; he repealed the stipends that Constantine had awarded to Christian bishops, and removed their other privileges, including a right to be consulted on appointments and to act as private courts… On 4 February 362, Julian promulgated an edict to guarantee freedom of religion. This edict proclaimed that all the religions were equal before the law, and that the Roman Empire had to return to its original religious eclecticism, according to which the Roman state did not impose any religion on its provinces. Practically however, it had as its purpose the restoration of paganism at the expense of Christianity.”

To his surprise however, he failed spectacularly in his efforts, all the more so considering that Christianity was not yet the predominant religion of the empire, rather still another sect among many. The pagan temples were simply already empty, abandoned or under new ownership by Christians who had simply moved in. To paraphrase the great authority on Rome, Edward Gibbon:

Did you remember to give Jeremy Wales your Shekels?:

Julian’s attempt to bring about a new form of paganism fostered a central pagan religion with the very virtues that he opposed in Christianity. For example, Julian attempted to introduce a tighter organization for the priesthood, with greater qualifications of character and service. Likewise, Julian’s persecution of Christians, who by pagan standards were simply part of a different cult, was quite an un-pagan attitude that transformed paganism into a religion that accepted only one form of religious experience while excluding all others–such as Christianity. In trying to compete with Christianity, Julian fundamentally changed the nature of pagan worship. That is, paganism became a religion, whereas it once had been only a system of tradition.”

This is a startling story because it raises many parallels with the situation that we find in America. The old religion is dying; the idea of a liberal, democratic, and prosperous society built upon the premise of the American Dream has disappeared. Americans more and more, wistfully look at the past with its assurances of a stable job with benefits, a loyal and feminine wife, and an assurance that future generations will have it better than you. Unfortunately, things are deteriorating, and have been for a while. Occasionally we get a pep talk from the Emperor-in-Chief about how we will revive the middle-class and restore American values back to their proper place on the bow of the HMS Progress. Jobs will come back and with them, the white picket fences will pop back up. Illegal immigration will be resolved, Ebola contained, race issues in America cordially concluded once and for all. We may as well be promised that women will no longer be taught to be empowered sluts, and frustrated beta males will be able to find wives again.

The truth of the matter, however, is that the genie is out of the box, pandora’s box opened and the toxic sludge of equalism with all its attendant derivatives (feminism, historical revisionism, racial self-abasement) continues to ooze out. It wont stop, and the old traditions won’t come back, even if a sympathetic emperor were to try and stem the tide. The nostalgia is not strong enough, the churches are empty, and the new visionaries continue to chant “progress” over a cacophony of equalist cant that drowns out the old truisms and traditions and labels them heretical.

Feebly clinging to the moderate ideologies of the last several decades is a sure way of ending up like Julian’s pagans. Turning the clock back 10, 20, maybe 50 years is a sure-fire way to get right back to where you started, as Julian found out. Reaction is not about trying to stave off “progress,” consigning oneself to fighting a rear-guard action against the forces of “reform” as they nip at the heels of a disorderly and retreating army. Conservatism in this sense is just a reaction to whatever current trend of progressivism happens to be most prevalent in a given society at the time. What good is it then to constantly dig one’s heels in, knowing that eventually and assuredly, the enemy will continue to press the advance and retreat will be inevitable? Conservatism is little more than a knee-jerk reaction and hardly an alternative at all. Don’t believe me? Trace the development of modern day conservatism and you’ll see a clear trajectory leftward and downward.