The Ideological Terror Campaign
Let us say that you grant me the premise that our societies have been built on Noble Lies since the times of Plato onwards. Does that then mean that everything that we have done since on a civilizational scale is therefore worthless? And if so, isn’t that a dangerous and subversive and deconstructive view to take? Aren’t I behaving just like the evil Leftists who seek to tear apart Western civilization by exposing its shortcomings and hypocrisies?
Well, yes and no.
Mostly no, actually.
Grant me one more premise before we go further though: that Plato essentially invented (or at least codified) the concept of Ideology as we know and use it today. I will explain and prove this later, but let’s just assume that you can at least entertain the idea for now. Let me explain what I mean exactly. To put it in the most neutral terms possible to start, ideological thinking is basically progressive, idealistic, utopian and faith-based thinking. That is, you have some goal — some Teleos — that you believe is worth working for.
Society then becomes an engine moving you forward to the realization of this goal.
For centuries, we would organize ourselves and our energy and our resources to achieve this goal, whatever the goal supposedly was. That goal can change though and there are multiple seemingly conflicting ideologies that we have adopted over the centuries. But there’s a “meta” level to this that transcends any individual differences that might exist between different ideologies. The part that stays the same in all ideological systems is their rationale for existing, and the organizational arrangement that they adopt even.
So, whether they are the Spartan Krypteia, the Platonic Guardians/Philosopher-Kings, the Inquisitors of the RCC, the Confucianist eunuchs of the Imperial Chinese court, or the NKVD of the Bolsheviks — all ideologies need an ideological police force to maintain ideological conformity and purity. All that fluctuates is the level of control that is able to be exerted, which is itself largely determined by organizational and technological ability, nothing else.
Thus: Ideologies create “priestocracies” wherever they are imposed. There will have to exist a position/caste in society, usually the prestigious and powerful, that focuses on maintaining the ideological doctrine. And it doesn’t matter what the doctrine is, exactly.
We only have to be able to look past the superficial differences to see fundamental core similarities and continuity of concept through the relentless terror march of recent recorded history.
As an example: let’s trace, say, Plato’s anti-pagan prohibition on use of color to the black-robed priests of the pharisaical Orthodox Christian Church, to the black-frocked black-hatted Hasidics, to the Victorian Britain era black-suited top-hat gentlemen, to the black leather jacket sporting Bolshevik death squads under Trotsky, to the modern all-black Antifa goons that terrorize cities on behalf of the FBI from time to time and to films depicting pretty much any dystopia based on Plato’s principles.
… there is a continuity to ideas over the centuries, is my point.
Not everyone knows enough information about certain time periods or is able to detect patterns due to cognitive deficits, or is able to trace an ideological dictate back through history to its origin point, but those threads are there, I assure you. From the establishment of a Permanent Ideological Police, to the periodic attempt to outlaw color even, these are just two such examples of ideological continuity and the periodic reversion to fundamentalism that our societies have experienced during centuries of political upheavals and ideological convulsions. This is not to say that interesting and beautiful and innovative things didn’t come out of the period of history for our peoples between Plato and now.
But I would argue that this occurred despite Plato essentially.
Now, most people spend their time debating ideologies, putting their preferred ideology against someone else’s. These disagreements usually take the form of debates, but spill over into violence often enough, unfortunately. To my mind though, all of these fights are simply debates over different version of Platonism, essentially. This is not only because there is a continuity to the ideas being debated over the centuries that has been forgotten by most people, but because the very concept of an ideology-based society is fundamentally Platonic in and of itself. There are many individual elements of Platonic Ideology-ism that bother me (like the emphasis on the color black, in particular) which I seek to rectify. But on the deepest level, what bothers me is the very concept of a society based around an ideology in the first place.
That is what I wish to overturn and discard and replace with something else.
That is the core essence of the concept that I’ve taken to calling Primordial Truth, as of late.
Essentially, once we remove the Platoism/Ideologism, that which remains is what we can truly call Primordial.
Culture as a Reaction to Ideology
As I alluded to before, our history is essentially a chronicle of terror being used to socially engineer populaces and to create an Ideological state in place of the Primordial one. This seems to hint at a fundamentally grim and dark view of history. While true, that doesn’t meant that the primordial didn’t also manifest in the darkest chapters of our history. The primordial and the ideological are always at war, and that war has its ups and downs and reversals of fortunes. That which is good can easily be defined as an expression of the primordial thwarting or overcoming the ideological in a given place or time or act, if even for a brief moment or on an individual level.
To put it in simpler terms: good things came out of the USSR too and even the Third Reich had some redeeming qualities. So too in China during the centuries of brutal occupation and merciless exploitation of their country by Manchu and Western foreigners. Even the dystopian hellhole of South Korea has some redeeming qualities to it — at least, that’s what I’ve heard from people who enjoy K-Pop and skincare products. Suffice it to say that examples abound. This is because, underneath the ideology, there are still people, who seek to express their authentic selves despite the layers of obfuscation and social engineering that has been paved over them.
Even in bad wars or periods of immense suffering, there were manifestations of the primordial. Take the experience of Ernst Junger during WWI, for example. Despite the industrial, mechanized, mass-scale killing, Junger was able to experience a spiritual catharsis in the trenches which he later wrote about in his books and metaphysical musings.
That is to say: we can all find a little piece of the primordial around us and within us, even in the most oppressive conditions imaginable.
Now, what we consider to be “culture” appears to me to be the product that emerges out of the inherent tension and contradiction between what a society is formally forced to believe and the folk struggling to come up with ways to circumvent this artificial imposition in increasingly creative ways. Most defense of ideology (regardless of the kind) is actually centered around defense of culture. You will find that a critique of an ideology often is interpreted as an attack on a culture. Most people cannot differentiate between the two. So, if I attack Communism, many Russians believe that I am attacking Russian culture. It is the same when I critique Cromwellism or Adam Smith with Anglos.
But I see culture as a positive thing — a reaction against ideology, actually.
And I see ideology as a negative thing — that which seeks to stifle the growth and development of organic culture that is a product of folk-expression.
Unfortunately, the vivid example of the Japanese and their hentai jumps to mind for this next part. Bear with me. So, if you didn’t know, the origin to this unique genre of pornography and an iconic element of Japanese culture stems from Imperial cultural censors banning the creation/distribution of erotic art/smut in Japan. This was part of a larger moralitarian, anti-Shinto campaign carried out by the Meiji government, which was copying Victorian Britain. So basically, Japanese artists had to come up with creative ways of circumnavigating the ban on erotica in art.
Thus, Japan’s world-famous octopus sex pornography culture was born.
Let’s take a slightly more controversial example next.
What is Hebrew culture, exactly?
Well, the Torah has about 613 mitzvahs/laws regulating the entirety of the Hebrew people’s waking lives. The Talmud is the codified tradition of rabbis coming up with wave to circumvent Yahweh’s laws for them without technically breaking the law. That’s why there is a fishing line cast all around Manhattan, the Holy Land of the Hebrew people, called an Eruv.
Look into it if you doubt me.
I mean, the best example is how Christianity was born when Paul essentially said that there was a way to practice Judaism without actually following any of the Hebrew god’s laws — by selectively ignoring the 613 mitzvahs, essentially. All of Christian culture is simply a form of deceiving Yahweh from that point onwards by flaunting his laws, but not technically violating them. Like, you still have to get circumsized like Yahweh decrees … but it can be done just in your heart now.
And you still follow all of the Hebrew holy days like Passover … but without the actual blood sacrifices now, only its symbolic form will suffice.
Amusingly, Christians believe that they are superior to the Talmudists because they claim that the Talmudists are trying to deceive God with their interpretations of his laws. They say this while also ignoring all of God’s laws themselves as laid down by Moses in the Old Testament. They don’t see how following the pharisee Paul’s loopholes for not observing the mitzvahs is the origin of their Christian culture; just as following other pharasee teachers and their unique loopholes in interpreting Yahweh’s laws is the basis for modern Judaism. If anything, the Talmudic tradition treats the mitzvahs of the Judeo-Christian god with far more respect, as evidenced by the extreme methods that they go to when keeping to the commandments while also striving to not let them inconvenience their lives unduly.
I could go on.
Personally I am not trying to make anyone feel bad about their people. Quite the opposite, I am actually trying to liberate our people from the shackles of bad ideology. But what comes next?
Primordialism as an Anti-’ism
It is, perhaps, not enough simply to be against something.
One has to articulate a coherent vision of something else, probably.
Example: once you strip a Russian of Communism or Orthodoxy, what are you left with? Some people would declare that nothing would be left, that these two elements are core components of Russian identity. Thus, without these ideologies, there is no Russian. It stands to reason then, that if I succeed in removing these two elements from a Russian, that I am essentially destroying the Russian. However, I don’t believe that this is true, of course, because I see Identity as being juxtaposed to Ideology. To me, Ideology is a parasite that attaches itself to a host — only the parasite would argue that without its presence in the host’s body that the host would cease to exist.
In contrast, I believe that when the artificial element is removed, what is left is just the primordial, and the host is left revitalized and reinvigorated by the end of the process.
And I would repeat this process for all peoples yearning to be free.
So, I’d strip the Anglo of their White Hebrewism, their Cromwellianism, their Darwinism, their Empiricism and the rest so that the primordial Briton could emerge from out of the dreck. Some people have far more ‘isms that need to be purged than others, and the Anglos are the absolute worst in this regard, unfortunately. Their entire culture would have to be flensed to the bone before we got anywhere close to the remnants of “merry old England” hidden somewhere in marrow, covered in the cancerous flesh of the last four centuries at least of Anglo body-politik tradition.
But I have struggled to explain that which would be left after the process of de-Ideologization was completed. I refer to this as the Primordial state and I can easily explain it in the form of a negative — that which is left once the artificial is removed.
It is like trying to explain what life and health would be like to a cancer patient who has only ever known cancer and sickness for their entire lives. Chances are, you’d define this potential cancer-free state to the patient in mostly negative terms at first. So, my pitch would go something like:
you won’t have to puke in a bucket every day.
you won’t have your hair fall out from doctors pumping you full of mustard gas to kill the cancer.
you won’t be bed-ridden and in debt to the sinister priest-butchers in white robes.
Can health be defined as the absence of disease?
Well, yes.
In that same way, nationalism can be defined as the absence of foreigners, perhaps. Or Communism can be defined as the absence of the “bourgeoisie”. Libertarianism, similarly is simply the absence of taxes or a federal government in the average Libertarian’s mind, at least.
But most cons are formulated on this negative template/basis as well.
Like, the conmen will always try to sell you on a negative proposition. So, they’ll say:
“Imagine a society without oppression, wouldn’t that be nice?”
Sure, but the deception lies in the lack of clarity upfront about what that absence would be filled in by.
To ensure a lack of, say, men oppressing their wives, a secret police would be formed to patrol the city and arrest harsh husbands, just as an example. And a society that lacks a bourgeoisie will instead have huge worker-barracks next to factories churning out mass-produced goods that never exceed a certain threshold of quality or luxury. Nationalism is far more concrete and less ideological, so a society without foreigners is both achievable and has been the norm for most territories for most of history. But modern nationalism still lacks a positive vision nowadays. Imagine defining the homogenous societies of European history in these solely negative terms — as being simply absent of any foreigners. The question then is:
“OK, but in the absence of foreigners, what DID they have?”
Was the Holy Roman Empire truly defined by the absence of sub-Saharans living in its cities, or was there something more to it?
That is, without those foreigners and their culture, what would you have instead/what did we have once upon a time?
I have always encouraged Nationalists to actually take the time to learn about their own national character and folklore instead of simply blindly copying the Roman Empire, or Christendom, or the Third Reich — the Holy Trinity of right-wing LARPs, essentially. Usually, my entreaties have fallen on deaf ears and once I get accused of engaging in subversion, I am then summarily hounded out of any space occupied by internet right-wingers. Most don’t have an answer as to what they and their folk are because our culture has been shackled to one ideological cause or another and without it, people don’t know anything about their primordial identity. They define their peoples’ purpose in history as being foot-soldiers of one ideological cause or another. Without a Noble Lie to butcher others in the name of, we’d have nothing essentially. These people cannot even conceive of the notion of having a will of their own, one that isn’t subservient to someone or something else’s interests.
I share my deep frustration about this state of mind here:
