The Failure of Conservatism

Despite existing for the duration of modern politics, conservatism as a movement has failed to achieve its goals: it has not restored any traditional existence to our people, and by giving up ground piece by piece in an effort to please its constituency, it has become assimilated by the broader philosophical change in our society, one that moves us slowly and inexorably toward a utilitarian international superstate. It has failed because its intent, to conserve, or keep what is, is by nature reactionary, and thus like the antithesis of a revolution, it fights for a piece of what exists, and does not aim toward a future movement for restoring something greater.

As a result of this reactionarism, even benevolent forms of conservatism operate through rigid separation of what is acceptable from what is not, but they lack a creative impulse toward an entirely different system, and thus both (a) fail to appeal to those who in dissent with the current system and see need for something entirely different and (b) are unable to uphold the structure of traditional beliefs, aiming instead to enforce them through rulesets applied to the already-hybrid character of politics in the status quo. In this light, it is not surprising that conservatives in America and Europe have reversed their original positions and now apply a kind of "convention-conservative liberalism," arguing via liberal methods and ideals for an upholding of convention.

What is needed instead is forward impetus; the best defense is a good offense. This does not prescribe more violent behavior, necessarily, but it does suggest that we stop thinking within the confines designed by the system, and thus leave behind the preservative nature of conservatism and launch on a quest to literally form a new society based on tradition, instead of trying to preserve what tradition remains, in adulterated form, in the ruins of modern society. Preservation means that one believes the game is already lost, and is trying to keep small amounts of something from the past alive. There is no concept of a philosophy of a whole society unifying it, and thus it becomes one more partisan voice screaming in a cacophony, and nothing changes.

Since conservatism lacks any forward philosophy, and exhibits great tendencies toward the reactionary, its audience is extremely limited since by only attacking existing socially-defined issues, it possesses no means of re-constructing civilization such that its current problems would be eliminated. The best it can do is condemn, and then seek to limit, the symptoms of these problems, but it cannot address them. For this reason, conservatism is destined not only to fail to achieve its objectives, but also to fail in acquiring new members from the most influential of those in coming generations. These see a myriad of problems which need to be addressed by a unifying philosophy, and want no part of any partisan identity best known for reactionary stodgy politics, as viewed in the foot-battles over abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools and similar non-effective means of change.

Our current situation in Western civilization is dire. We have lost our impetus toward great and heroic deeds, as well as our affinity for nature, and as a result we have become a neurotic people that expands in all directions without regard for quality or reverence for natural life. As a consequence, our learning has declined; our cities are rotted; our people are under assault by invaders of different ethnicities; drugs and crime are rampant; we are committing ecocide. These are the major problems which conservatism, if it wishes to be a philosophy for the next millennium, must address, and it does not. Instead it has become split into factions addressing symbolic issues.

In order for a voice for traditional culture to survive, conservatism must be surpassed by something which has forward impetus and can appeal to new generations, who are increasingly alienated from the conventional because it has failed them and has no means of checking its own expansion. The root of this surpassing is found by developing a new political philosophy for tradition outside of the bounds of "left" and "right," and giving it the scope to remake society in a way that promotes replacement ideas for our current method of dealing with every issue on which our society is currently failing. Much as the existential conditions of life are eternal, so are some truths, and thus to see where the moderns err we must contrast their philosophy with that of the ancients. The sections that follow discuss aspects of this philosophy.

Moralism versus Naturalism

Philosophy establishes for us two opposite angles of ethical thought. The first is that we must impose a uniform order on nature to prevent erratic behaviors like predation, violence, and victimization of the weaker. For the purposes of this article, such beliefs will be referred to as "moralism," to differentiate them from the process of having a moral code in and of itself. The opposite of moralism is naturalism, where the "random" behaviors such as predation and mutation are seen as part of a larger order of nature. The first is a moral belief in that it attempts to limit the "bad"; the second is naturalistic, in that it attempts to explain both bad and good in the context of a natural, functional aspect to life. There is no way to hybridize these beliefs successfully, as one is naturally inclined toward favoring the individual over the natural process, and the other, not.

It makes the most sense to group moralism with utilitarianism, and naturalism with heroism, if one is to trace these beliefs to their root philosophy. In utilitarianism, whatever pleases the largest segment of the group is seen as the most valuable; although this creates a mob and thus selects only that which they have in common, which is invariably of a lowest common denominator nature, it is designed originally to protect the individual by making the form of the individual the basis for decision. If each individual is seen as a subset of an abstract form, and thus is protected by the boundaries of the form from too much analysis of the performance or abilities or character of the individual, the naturalistic order is inverted, and a moral one - which prevents predation and other violations of individual autonomy and authority - created in its stead. This moral utilitarianism is the basis of modern politics, including egalitarianism, liberal democracy and free enterprise.

Heroism on the other hand is a recognition of the lack of absolute individual authority or autonomy, and thus engenders twofold belief: first, that nature is a meta-good, encompassing both good and bad, which maintains itself through a balance of good and bad; second, that the individual is inseparable from this natural force, and thus that the individual life while a goal in itself is secondary to other goals in life. Heroic belief systems tend to be idealistic in this regard, in that their view is that whatever happens to the individual, what is most important is the goal and the abstract beliefs that individual upheld even if making the ultimate sacrifice. Moralism is categorically opposed to this attitude, as is utilitarianism.

Ethnocultural Tradition and Eugenics versus Free Enterprise

One central idea of modern societies is social mobility of the individual; in order to avoid basing this mobility on any "subjective" traits such as character or intelligence, societies opt for the lowest common denominator yet again, that being the ability to earn and spend money. For this reason, "free enterprise," or the ability for any person to start a business and make however much profit they can, has been a cornerstone of modern government, and through a sleight of hand in history, has become a cause championed by the right because it provides an alternative to the norming, bureaucratic centralization of Bolshevism.

However, it is important to note that this same process of norming is brought about by one of the requirements of free enterprise, which is a belief in the equality of the individual, as this way their motivations and the effects of what they do are not considered; that they are an individual, of the abstract form defined by society as its highest value, is enough to guarantee them a lack of criticism for whatever they do. Much as moralism defines the individual as sacrosanct and thus does not look farther into an individual life than to ascertain that it meets the form of the individual, Bolshevism standardizes the individual into a one-size-fits-all approach, an action seen as the only way to achieve equality. Similar results are now finally being seen in the capitalist governments, which when faced with the dilemma of their populations living under unequal circumstances, have attempted to externally enforce upon them "equality."

Much as morality requires either a god or a strong state or both to serve as a reference point and source of power for enforcement, free enterprise requires a strong central bureaucratic state which in time becomes more important than the culture over which it presides. In contrast to this, the naturalistic-heroic view is one that does not create an abstract form of the individual and preserve it, but sees all individuals as part of the continuum of nature, and thus tries to breed the best individuals it can, realizing that no external force can change what is inside of a person and their innate tendencies and qualitative character, intelligence and strength. For this reason, ancient societies tended to have their own forms of ethnocultural isolation, usually a strong national identity, and eugenics, which is practiced in both (a) killing or sterilizing those who do not exhibit desired traits at all and (b) working to make those who have desired traits breed more prodigiously than those who have less of said traits.

Bureaucratic Government versus Social Order

Modern systems of social organization rely almost exclusively on massively centralized bureaucratic governments, where more traditional methods have involved local rule because it enables decisions to be made based on the specifics of each individual as known to his or her neighbors. A bureaucracy, on the other hand, deals with paper and with abstract constructs such as the "average individual," assuming that no specifics are needed regarding each unique case. This leads to hilarity when people realize that an average size seat fits no one, an average meal is the right size for no one, and that an average procedure results in all sorts of exceptions having to be listed on the triplicate form, making it eleven pages long. However, when one is using a model where government imposes consensus on the people, it is most efficient to centralize, and since centralization means one cannot deal with local specifics, bureaucratic "average" ideals become sensible also.

Traditional civilizations were not passive, and thus had less of a need for a government which could impose values in the void created by a lack of social consensus. Communities were formed and gathered around fundamental values, and they upheld them by refusing to deal with individuals who did not have such values. Further, many of the internal functions of government - such as education, welfare and health care - were handled within the local community on what would be a socialized basis if it were so formalized. Local communities that could organize themselves around these principles prospered, and those which were veering into chaos anyway fell apart, thus the system was self-regulating.


It would be an error to dismiss conservatism out of hand, as its values are closer to a traditional view than anything we have in a modern time, but it is necessary to recognize its limitations as a hybrid of past and future, and thus to create a new vehicle which thinks outside of the political containership which confines conservatism. As part of its adaptation to modern politics, conservatism embraces bureaucratic government, free enterprise and moralism, while upholding in theory the values of a type of society which those mechanisms will never permit. For this reason, it is fair to say that conservatism is paradoxical on the level of re-orienting society toward its goals; conservatism is designed to "preserve" what is left of the original impetus toward those values, but has no plan in place for reversing the course of civilization away from them, or for building a new civilization based upon them. As a result, conservatism is by nature defensive and thus reactionary, and therefore unlikely to gain any new members as things get worse.

To those who analyze societies on the level of millennia, it is apparent now that our current civilization is in its final days, however long it may take the decay to manifest itself fully. Between our rampant environmental destruction and our internal loss of values, modern humanity has become disconnected from reality to the point where our ideologies are an imposition of our desires on the world, but not an organization of the factors involved to make our desires real. This disconnection is caused by our belief in utilitarianism, and from that, liberal democracy and liberalism. The root of this behavior is a philosophy of passivity which is paralyzing our forward motion toward creative goals, and the only way to fix this situation is to replace it with an active philosophy which keeps in mind traditional values while moving into the future.

Any new civilization to arise out of the ashes of modernity must balance several aspects to any culture: it must balance the needs of the individual against the needs of the whole, and the needs of humans with those of nature, as well as maintaining health for individuals both physically and psychologically. The root of this balance is in a resurrection of the heroic, or active, mindset, and a banishing of the moralistic, "free enterprise" and bureaucratic impulses of the current civilization. The heroic mindset affirms leadership and harmony with nature by its essence, and is in direct contrast to deferential utilitarianism, which creates a dualism between reality as physical essence and political reality, or what one must say and do to please the broadest segments of the population. When one creates a deferential system, what follows is a neurotic state of mind where public events and definitions do not correspond to actual intent, as they are designed to please a crowd that insists on a fantasyland state of mind in order to avoid any overt criticism of its members.

A New Order

No two ages are the same, but regardless of the age in which one lives, the factors of adaptation to our environment remain the same. Indo-European culture evolved through an emphasis on deferred gratification and long-term planning as more important than immediate individual gratification, and only when we resurrect this order will our society be healthy again; when our values fit into that worldview, the symptomatic problems of today which arise from our neurotic state of mind - including ecocide, ethnocultural dissolution and individual existential boredom and fear - will be addressed sensibly, as what must be done will follow from the central principle of a heroic, long-term gratification order.

This may seem unlikely to most, but this order can be achieved, and can be achieved wholly through democratic means, even though it seems like a slim chance if at all. However, we are Indo-Europeans; as Indo-Europeans, we specialize in the long shots and in doing the impossible. We will do it again.

Our first goal is to shed the "progressive" mindset, by which we are steadily evolving toward a more moral and more technologically empowered civilization; morality and technology are external means of control, and do not regulate the quality of our individual character which is the basis of any successful civilization. There can never be enough police officers or legislators to watch over every person, and force them to behave, thus a more sensible model is to use self-discipline and eugenic breeding practices to produce better humans who are naturally inclined to healthy behavior. "Empowering" people does not do this, but creates more dependents on a bureaucratic state. We must instead recognize that the best strategies for adaptation to our world will not change regardless of how much technology or good intention we have.

Healthy behavior always has the long term goal in mind, and this is entirely coherent with the order of nature. Planning for the coming winter allows an organism to survive away from the chaos and tedium of the jungle, and shapes the mind to handle greater complexity. In traditional Indo-European society, long-term goals have always been prevalent. We uphold honor over immediate self-gratification, chastity and fidelity in mating and courtship, conservative personal behavior that avoids momentary excess that sacrifices our long-term goals, and caring for our environment and society as a whole, instead of focusing on individuals in an egalitarian sense, which requires the entire chain be beholden to its weakest link. Our goal is to forge a stronger chain, and to recognize that nature "red in tooth and claw" is in fact more benevolent than preservation of weaker individuals, as it ensures that only stronger individuals will be bred, thus lessening the degree of suffering felt by those born in the future and society as a whole.

We deny Social Darwinism, or the idea that the people who make the most money are the best examples of our breed. Profit is a trivial, short-term goal, and reflects in those who champion it only the meanest and most unstable. The second word in "National Socialism" refers to a restoration of a traditional feudal society, which is classless and meritocratic by its nature, preferring to separate people into castes bred specifically for certain ranges of tasks. These castes are not measured linearly, as classes are, but hierarchically, so that specialization produces people better at what they do and does not judge all people by the same absolute standard. Class systems line us all up and compare us by wealth, but in a caste system, wealth is secondary to achieving excellence in one's field, which is something rarely rewarded by sheer monetary motivation.

We affirm ethnoculture, which states that the only way we can exist as a population is if both ethnicity and culture are preserved in their traditional state. It took tens of thousands of generations to selectively breed us as we are; those who existed in other cultures have bred themselves for other purposes, and two or more different ethnocultures cannot coexist because they are differently specialized. Instead of measuring all people by an internationalist and cosmopolitan standard, we embrace diversity through isolation, and allow each ethnocultural group to determine itself and to breed according to its own standards and cultural norms. We do not need bigotry, a passive and reactionary emotion, for this: we affirm the warlike and assertive stance that "I prefer to live among my own ethnoculture" is irrefutable and the strongest statement one can make in this area.

We reject moralism as an artifact of human wishful thinking, and replace it with cultural consensus toward a goal and ideals for our civilization, so that any act can be judged for its fitness in achieving that goal, and not passively in terms of what was sacrificed for that goal. Moral societies, descending from the Judean religion and its secular offshoot, liberalism, do not have a goal except to avoid transgressing moral law, which hampers them and throws their population into neurotic disorder, because in order to make change one must inevitably upset and possibly kill someone; this is not possible with the absolute "rights" and "morals" of passive societies. We reject passivity in all of its forms, because heroism is our traditional order and for our purposes is the only moral/character system that exists.

We affirm localization, or the idea that each town or community can for the most part regulate itself, and reject the idea of centralized bureaucratic government regulating the daily behavior of its people and attempting to impose moral and political attitudes upon them. Again, diversity: one town may be more flexible than another in regards to certain behaviors, and only time will judge the effectiveness of that approach. Centralization makes cultures more likely to collapse as a unit, while localization affords flexibility and connects each generation intrinsically to the land their ancestors have possessed and loved.

Our motto is "Blood and Soil," in that we believe every population must have a homeland and that when we are connected to a natural environment the idea of consuming it recklessly or polluting it becomes alien to our mindset; our civilization is a collaborative effort to survive in a harsh natural context, and we affirm the value of this environment and adaptation to it with grace and caring. Our blood is the foundation of our homeland as much as the natural land, its forests and animals, and the two must exist together or they will not at all. We reject the ideas of mass immigration and convenient travel between nations as these are ultimately destructive to local populations and to the natural land; someone who is foreign to a place has no reason to love its land as much as his own flesh.

We affirm difference among genders, among castes, and among individuals, and much as both positive and negative are necessary to maintain a whole that is ultimately positive, we see this difference as essential to our collaboration and building of a civilization. We reject polarization between genders; no one wins, and ultimately it makes women more manlike and men more womenlike, stealing from both their uniqueness and sacred roles in upkeeping the family. Gender-polarized cultures destroy fidelity in relationships, and thus make love an alienated principle to the relationship, replaced by a politics of appeasement and passive demand which leads to resentment. It is more sensible to realize that there is no single standard for human beings, and that forcing men and women to compete reduces their ability to appreciate one another; further it is important to see that having a job is no measurement of "empowerment," but only one of the functions in society. In a healthy society family is more important than workplace "power."

We affirm the beauty of our natural world and reject ecocide in all of its forms, and pledge ourselves to the death in if nothing else resistance to this most horrible of human transgressions. That we are breeding out of control, and want a place to put our extra people and can make profit from it, does not justify the replacement of natural ecosystems in a forest with concrete and subdivision. Humans should occupy a small fraction of available land, as we are but one species in the midst of billions, and each of those serves an important role in maintaining the whole; all of them, from bacteria to bears, are our allies in the sacred fight for survival. There is no excuse for what we have done; while talking heads whine about genocide, humanity has committed the great crime of ecocide in more places than not, and has already eliminated many irreplaceable species and ecosystems. This is the greatest crime one can do, akin to a baby killing its mother without provocation. Nature created us, and is within us, and our denial of this comes from fear of death and nothing else; a heroic view is to see death or life as secondary to upholding our ideals, which include love for the eternal process of nature.

We affirm creativity as a means of surmounting problems in life. When one way is blocked, there is another, and at no point should we box ourselves into rigid mindsets that see fatalism as the only solution; we can, and will, find another way, because our ultimate goal and ideal is important enough to warrant any sacrifice. For this reason, we do not fixate on the methods that are currently used in error by our society, but on how we can fix them. Corporations can be made to serve the state and through it, the goals of the people; the passive elements of Christianity can be reformed; televisions and radio can be put to good use. There are few absolutes in life, but if one accepts absolutes, one becomes prone to situations of no resolution, in which paradox and frustration result. Creativity is the heroic antithesis to this state.


When we look at what would come after conservatism for those who wished to uphold its basic values but not its paradoxical methods, it becomes clear that its first necessity is replacing a passive philosophy with an active one: no longer trying to conserve, but to build anew. Only through this can a system as decadent as ours be truly defeated, as to take it seriously and work within issues as it defines it is self-defeating. For this reason, we must replace conservatism with the values it purports to conserve, and in doing so, we can remake our society from a suicide queue into a civilization worthy of the ancients.