The Anti-Narrative of Radicalism

“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles…”
~Sun Tzu

Le Pandemonium by John Martin, 1841.

Feminists, Socialists, Race-Baiters, Multiculturalists, Environmentalists, and Relativists – the enemies of civilization are endless.  Their policies are schizophrenic, each group is constantly at odds with one-another, and even within their own camps intractable divisions exist: Environmentalists can’t decide whether they’re for or against nuclear power, Multiculturalists demand diversity while promoting mono-cultural Sharia Law, and Feminists are torn on whether all sex is rape, or if pornography is liberating.  The degenerates warble with the ceaseless clamouring of Pandemonium, finding unity in their endless contradictions.  Repugnant and ugly in their quest to corrupt the spirit of logic and inquiry, they baffle the sane mind.  Their policies and personalities are aptly summarized as “Hating God”; simply ask yourself “How would they most blaspheme the Truth?  Most profane all beauty?  How could they go about twisting the narrative so as to celebrate squatting in the sort of filth that good men revile?” Answer that question, and you can predict the social movements which will be appearing in short order.

There is an underlying method to their madness, however; the Devil doesn’t want to create his own world, after all, he wants to usurp God’s creation.  The Relativist, in his quest to debase creation, must use the tools of creation to undermine it.  He is as much God’s creature as the scientist or the priest, and even the irreligious are subject to Natural Law.  He can be scrutinized, and it is through this scrutiny that we realize just how wanting Modernism is, to allow such a rapid fungal growth of Post Modernism in the first place.

Politics is not a two-fold narrative of Left Versus Right; there is a third agent at play, informing and manipulating the dialogue used by the other two.  They call themselves “Radicals”.

I still remember the first time I ran into this three-fold nature of our poisonous modern discourse: it was during a second-year Political Sciences class.  Our class was broken down into three groups, and given the task of debating some matter of trade policies which we had just learned about twenty minutes before.  If you think that encouraging students to debate with nothing but ignorance and rhetoric in their arsenal is a foolish proposition, you’re missing the point: just as Plato once taught the Socratic Method for arriving at truth, we were being trained in the foundations of modern dialogue.  As McLuhan observed, “the medium is the message”; at no point were we supposed to learn about the topic at hand, what we were supposed to learn was how these topics are meant to be talked about.

It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.

Radicals pride themselves on the fact that the word “Radical” stems from the Latin radicalis – “of having roots”.  As such they delve into the fundamental questions of politics, exploring the assumptions which are at play behind the two competing camps.  Through this, the Radicals become both meta and anti ideology; they are corrosive, but without a purpose, transmuting both lead and gold into filth.  The whole conception of “Left Versus Right” is a fundamentally Radical concept, and though they use many different names for these two stances, the analysis is always the same: that both are based upon unaccountable assumptions, which the radical will question, but never answer.

First comes Conservatism: this is the school which assumes a laissez-faire approach to all things politcal, social, and economic.  It is the policy of the 1940s, a mature form of Capitalism with reactive government intervention.  When discussing war, it takes the stance of Von Clausewitz: war is politics by other means.  With Unions, the government must help end the strike: such disruptions are merely a side-effect of misguided management policies.  With marriage and the church, again – the disruptions therein are caused by factors that ought to be studied and addressed.  All forms of disruption are avoidable, in theory, if we simply learn what all the factors are: with a perfect science of human relationships, we could amended a free-market into perfect stability, and a certain amount of negotiated freedom.

Next we have the response to Conservatism, Liberal Managerialism: rather than the simplistic and cold analysis of the Conservatives, the Liberals assume the existence of cycles, of humans acting in an embedded matrix of institutions, and ask the question “How can we manage this to make it more manageable?” Liberalism is the Great Society of the 1950s.  It is the Keynesian economics of managing the business cycle.  To the Liberal, conflict is inevitable, ergo we must manage the conflict.  To manage war?  Create councils, not peace-agreements: this will control the extent of the devastation, wars become Police Actions.  When it comes to Unions, design the laws so that the Union and Management are inter-dependent upon each other.  Strikes will still occur, if for no other reason than to get the bad blood out, but the institutions now dominate, the individuals will conform to the structures.  For marriage and the church, provide replacements and supply a safety net; if divorce is inevitable, we must make it workable.  Manage and mitigate: those are the operative words of the Managerial Liberal.

On the public stage, these two schools are the actors.  There is a farcically-sincere battle being waged with blunted-weapons, providing emotional catharsis for the audience-participants.  Behind the scenes exist the Radicals: they don’t have a party, because they don’t have answers.  They have questions – endless questions! – structured to deny any answer, intended merely to explore.

The Radicals deny being Marxists – after all, Marxism is a political stance and they’re just asking questions – and yet the whole structure of their philosophy depends upon Marx’s concepts of class warfare.  They take it as a given that different classes of people have goals which are divergent and – more importantly – irreconcilable.

• The Conservative says that both Unions and Management want a healthy economy; the Liberal says that sometimes they need to scrap, but they’re both part of The System™.  The Radical knows that any appearance of similarity is based upon false-consciousness, and the illusion (due to relative economic conditions) that Unions and Management can work together.
• The Conservative sees marriages fail, and asks “How can we fix this?” The Liberal replies, “There’s no fixing needed – sometimes marriages don’t work.  We just need to mitigate the fallout.” The Radical knows that, fundamentally, men and women are in a perpetual war.  A marriage may appear to work for two individuals in a given circumstance, but on a fundamental level there is no solution, no negotiated truce to be had between the sexes: conflict is the foundation, the root of their interaction.
• The Conservative tries to fix an economic downturn with public works projects, such as the Hoover Dam; while this may go against Austrian Economic policy, it does relieve human suffering in the short-term.  The Liberal sees the downturn, and asks how we can mitigate and manage the destruction of the business cycle.  The Radical knows that divergent economic interests can never be resolved: the bankers versus the citizens, the capitalists versus the workers, the imperialists versus the natives.
• The Conservative sees war and asks “How do we stop this from happening again?” The Liberal asks “How do we manage and mitigate the human nature which led to this destructive conflict?” The Radical knows that it was the assumptions of the other two – God, King, and Country – which led to the war in the first place.

Radicalism is the foundation of the Cathedral.  Every approved-of University text has the Radical approach at its foundation.  Not an ideology like Marxism, but an anti-ideology, the corrosion of ideology, the pigeon-holing and tearing-down of both Left and Right into a ceaseless death-spiral of unanswerable questions.  No positive statement is ever forthcoming from the Radicals, instead they manufacture a solipsistic universe, turning the two political stances into marionettes, dancing in circles and quickly losing whatever stance they may once have held to.  These professors appear to be harmless as they muse idly, half-jokingly asking the question “Well, yes – but why?” of each and every modernist stance.

The Professors are the fruiting bodies, and the movements are the grey-green mould which forms on the body-politic.  Each new movement creates new spores, and new cases of injustice which need to be addressed.  When feminists clash with the gay-rights groups over whether transgendered persons can use the women’s washroom, this doesn’t harm them: it becomes a new avenue for the Radicals to promote degeneracy and filth.

Trying to fight the Radicals only provides them increased opportunity: you’re stripping off the top-layer of the bread, giving them access to the fresher bits underneath.  The Conservative attacks the Liberal, giving the Radicals fresh victims in need of advocates: the Liberal enables social illness, creating more of the socially-ill in need of advocates.  Try and fight the Radical, and somebody steps in to fight for the Radical.  Solipsism corrodes everything.

The underlying issue isn’t the Radicals or their degenerate groupies in and of themselves – the problem which needs addressing is our society’s extreme susceptibility to this rot.  Modernist Positivism is a breath of fresh air after descending to the foetid depths of Post Modernism, but it is nonetheless a bankrupt philosophy.  Friedrich Nietzsche yelled challenges at a Church which had forgotten its true purpose, but rather than respond with courage and purpose, the Church started slipping opiates to their masses in exchange for tithes, while the technocrats mistook Poppers methodology for an ontological philosophy.  Atheists hang posters of Albert Einstein, justifying their mechanistic worldview with quotes taken out of context, from a man who undermined the whole scientific concept of simultaneity; meanwhile, they’ve never heard of his good friend Kurt Friedrich Gödel, who proved with a certitude only known to Mathematicians that Mathematics qua Mathematics was itself an insufficient theory.

Great Men have been speaking the Truth which utterly destroys and undermines the irreligious Enlightenment Philosophers, and yet the so-called great minds of our time understand this Truth about as well as a Baptist, raving about gay dinosaurs, understands the Bible.

Mechanistic Virtue is the virtue of the draught horse, the pack mule, the watch dog – not the virtue of a Vir – of a Man.  Yet that is the only Virtue our race has known for two centuries.  Until we rediscover this higher-order reality – this True Philosophy of Plato, Marcus Aurelius, St Augustine, and Nietzsche – this Righteous, Manly nature which grants its bearer the Armour of God – we shall continue to be exposed to these toxins and parasites, and wind up bitten by every serpent we handle.

Lest you think this is a problem which we’ve only begun to experience during the past couple decades, I leave you with the words of Joseph Heller, from his novel Catch-22:

Catch-22 did not exist, he was positive of that, but it made no difference. What did matter was that everyone thought it existed, and that was much worse, for there was no object or text to ridicule or refute, to accuse, criticize, attack, amend, hate, revile, spit at, rip to shreds, trample upon or burn up.

Fight the Cathedral?  There is no Cathedral.  It’s nothing but a postulate.  You’ll have better luck bending a spoon…

…and once you learn to bend spoons, that is when you learn how to fight a postulate.