New Failure, Old Problem

Elsewhere over the course of my blog here, I have discussed the problem of Novelty. Novelty, as is useful to define as the Catholic Church does, was condemned as a Heresy under the moniker of Modernism. This is the compulsive idea that new must necessarily equal better, and that recent must necessarily equal improvement. A new car is better than an old car. A new hammer is stronger than an old one. A new religion is smarter than the old one.
Nevermind a moment the irony of Catholicism, which absorbed the foregoing Paganism of the Hellenics, and later, the Celtics and Germanics until such a point that it was scarcely recognisable from the unfortunate Semitic elements, should define a heresy of novelty. After all, Jesus was once the ‘hot, new thing.’ Now, mind you, in what we once called the Hvite Krist, I do find redeeming value, lest I be accused of sowing dissent as those who dabble in religious trends so often are within our travelling circles. Assuming of course I can even escape the accusation, where paranoia has necessarily come to rule the roost.

I digress. Is new necessarily better? No. This is an incredibly foolish metric by which to judge value. New means nothing outside of a chronological placement. New is new. There is nothing more to be said of it. In fact, by all practical means, one would be well advised to test newness. Yet, the opposite again is true.

Modernity bred an army of dullards and simpering twits, whose stunted brains are so indebted to dopamine fixture that they cannot help but flock to new. It is their high, and this pathological novelty has become quite ubiquitous. It has fattened up the Media Industrial Complex like a retired whore who feels no need to fit into any of her old day walking skirts now that she has saved up enough slut money to buy a flat in the suburbs.
It would appear that there are hardly any movements which escape the problem of novelty. My own preferred venture of Nationalism fits this bill as well, where new parties pop up like maggots on a cow patty, only to dry up like mosquito corpses and blow away. The ultimate and obvious problem with novelty is that it can never satisfy. Ever. It always never works. Because as soon as the newness gets thin, the hunger strikes and one is off to the next new. Otherwise it’s old news. We don’t want that, evidently.

The problem is deeper. In terms of politics, religion, and infrastructure anyway. The issue I have with compulsive novelty is as mentioned before. There is no viable framework to measure immediate success; there is no graduation or gradation. In compulsive novelty, in these new political ventures, you frequently find that the framework is ramshackle and haphazard. This is because frequently, everyone is in a mad rush to define themselves solely against what went before. This is an example of a negative liberty, as opposed to creative thinking.
So often we hear: “this will work because we aren’t like so-and-so. They failed because blah-blah-blah, but we won’t make the same mistake.” It is a terrible metric because that is not a positive application. Juxtapose this with an actual strategy such as: “we must reinvigorate our culture, which has been damaged by years of erosion and malnutrition: we shall do this by analysing our current viable philosophical elements and creating a synthesis or syncretism between our divergent opinions to achieve a consensus.”
This half-hearted tendency toward obsessive novelty leaves a vacuum where creativity has immense trouble flourishing. In the perennial attempt to distinguish oneself from the former, the latter suffers because they refuse to analyse what was at all successful about the foregoing. Very often it leaves you defenceless against the lessons a generally cyclical historical march freely reveal to inquiring minds.

How many Nationalist Parties would have fared better were they acquainted with our history? Elsewhere we have established that the problem with political partying is that politics is frequently twenty years behind the curb. The example I used before was the homosexual front. I maintain that assessment, by the time what they call gay marriage was legalised; it did not change the fact that gays had been lobbying for quite some time. The same can be said of Civil Rights. Politically, coloured people received their magick equality passes only after years of monumental pressure from lobbies and defense groups which would in turn batter the American public emotionally until you return to the current year in which MultiKulti rules the roost. ONERACEHUMANRACE is now de jure, but this defacto political call to remittance and indulgence was too at least a hundred years in the making.
How does this apply to Nationalism? The Political Nationalist addresses a problem which was foreseen over a hundred years ago by men like Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant. The difference? Political activism appeals only to a narrow strait of men, until the PUBLIC CONSENSUS has shifted. Nationalist Parties speak to a largely deaf crowd. The question is an old one, quite timeless, in fact.
The answer is Cultural. The questions asked by Nationalists are often short-sighted. Blinded by novelty. They ask why the marches don’t work. Why the Normies won’t wake up. Ironically, the answers are found in many a meme. NPC, bugman, to name a couple. 80% of men are reactionary in nature. They reflect the interior mental environment they absorbed as children or young adults. The solution to the problems faced by Nationalists must therefore far predate political quandaries. For Politics exist only to marshal extent resources. They are helpful inasmuch as organising exterior elements go.

To affect change you have to dig far beneath the surface. You have to change the culture. This is not done from a podium. This kind of power comes later. As it stands, there is a vacuum in the heart of American society where culture used to be. The MultiKulti religion is like cheap Chinese food, it does not satisfy, it gives you indigestion and you often feel guilty about what you’ve eaten later. The American peoples are gradually turning away from it. And by American peoples, I mean Whites. By and large, stock and trade, the coloureds were always wont to steer away from it. It was a lie especially made for us.

However, the diaspora being created by the dissatisfaction in globalism is not being filled by any particular power. Instead it is a mad scramble by various (((media))) enterprises and consumerist functions to convince the peoples that their versions of novelty will satisfy. They won’t, of course.
People are generally ripe for cultural reinforcement, but as mentioned, folks are often followers and don’t know where to begin. One of the roles of the Nationalist should therefore be to study our own past, history and present. We need to be focusing on a cogent narrative that can be fed back to our peers. We have failed to do this, and the penalties are obvious when you really think of them. We need to supply for a demand that is not necessarily a conscious one.
Why do you think shows like Vikings crop up so frequently? Why have Greek Mythology films never truly faded? Or why, even today, Bible based films sell like hot cakes? These are cornerstones of culture. It is more than a tendency towards LARP, that attitude is shallow, cynical and counterproductive. Military epics are on the rise as well. Films that give shape to sense of place. The fact that you can go to a Renaissance Faire and see the throngs of costumed peasants pretending to be princesses and pikemen betray a singular fact: they want to reconnect and experience something real, and solely theirs.

A subgoal of Nationalism needs to be to answer the aggravating question we are often asked. “What is White?” When asked, my answer is “I am.” And what am I? I am the inheritor of my family’s name, attached to which is an Ethnic History which spans continents and 600 years – that is the legacy I can put to words, the fact is, my bloodline is far older. Contained in my veins is a textbook or more of history and culture that is uniquely tailored to my genome. That’s a damned impressive claim, when you think about it.

So think about it. Educate yourself. Read our myths and epics. Study our historical campaigns, our explorative journeys and scientific achievements. They did not occur in a vacuum, and there are not many at their core who feel this way. They lack the framework to describe it. The goal of Nationalism ought to be to provide that framework.
It’s clichéd and old hat, but it really is not about hate. Edgy memes are a defense mechanism employed by people who have been forced to live on the edge. Even among your own Nationalist kin you’re going to have to rip off some scabs and drag people screaming from the Cave and into the light. These too, the memes, the jokes, must be examined, and placed atop a much deeper understanding of our plight.

The beginning of this is to make connections with men you trust. Männerbund, Brotherhood – form local cliques, local cells. Work on culture creation in the safety of a group whom you trust. The internet age must come to an end, inasmuch as the internet has become the end-all-be-all and surrogate for depth and purpose. Real purpose is the destiny of culture. We must recreate culture in order to save us from the (((world))) we live in. It requires not marches, nor protests, but a wholesale and immediate divorce. A parasite, when shrugged, must find a new host, or die.
Presently there is nothing stopping White Men of good character from free association. Fear, guilt and paranoia do a number, but these are internal problems. We are not yet so far in a Stalinist fantasy where apolitical gatherings of men are thrown into question. This is cultural resistance, the solution to cultural disintegration.

Get together, make it happen. When we fill in the blanks of our culture, we will then be ready for political success, but until such a time as we have a Polis to politicise there will be an endless string of new failures with the old problem.