With as many projects on the burner as I have, and when many of these projects relate to my career, or my community, I have doubts that my proposed book will be finished in the near future. Acknowledging this, I want to pen the basic thesis of my book, saving the proofs for the work.
What the End of Modernity Means
“Modernity”, “the modern age”, and “modern man” are terms thrown around all too often, frequently with contradictory meanings, if adequate meanings are provided. Elsewhere I have discussed what “modernity”, and “post-modernity” are, but here I will say what the end of modernity means. The end of the modern age means the end of the nation-state, and the end of givenness.
In pre-modernity the privileged political form was the empire, which was typically held together by a religion. Once pre-modernity ended, the nation-state, which was held together by a common ethnicity, and common culture, became the privileged form of modernity. Because of immigration, and inter-marriage, many countries (especially America) no longer can sincerely claim, even if they wanted, to represent the will of a particular ethnicity, in no small part because the very ethnicity that the nation-state was formed around has ceased to be a majority, and those remaining members are often so mixed that they could choose to identify with many different heritages. For the nation-state to become the privileged political form again, mass deportations, eugenics, violence, and reeducation would be required, a feat for which no will exists, and which, to put it mildly, raises a few moral questions. A reformation project, it should be noted, would not be a true nation-state, for those that advocate these things have in mind a racial group, which is a broader category than the nation-state traditionally allows. What would emerge would be something different, with only the label of “nation-state.”
We live in a post nation-state world, a world where nations are parts of a budding global state.
Both the pre-modern, and modern man experienced a phenomenon we can call “givenness.” Truth is, for both pre-modernity and modernity, “out there”, and accessible to all, regardless of cultural background, language, or tradition. Thomas Aquinas and John Locke both believed that their conclusions would be acceptable to all thinking men. Because of flaws in the correspondence theory of truth, which underlies both pre-modern and modern thinking, flaws that will take chapters to explain, it is no longer plausible to believe in such universal access to truth. What language we think in, what our cultural background is, and what tradition we were raised in, effects how we think. I believe, like Alasdair MacIntyre this is a positive, while those in the footsteps of Jacque Derrida tend to believe that it darkens the glass by which we look at truth. As a final quick note, when givenness has disappeared, when there is no prevailing narrative that is accepted as obviously true, everything becomes possible. You can have furries at the same time as Catholics without a Pope, and transhumanists at the same time as Islamists.
What Do Political Forms Look Like Now?
With the nation-state gone, and unsalvageable, and givenness out the window, the question becomes: how does it become possible to organize? The current situation is not dissimilar to that of the Rum Millet in the Ottoman Empire. A Roman Orthodox minority existed in the midst of a Muslim Ottoman Empire, and despite living in a hostile land, being vastly outnumbered, and overpowered, they were able to exercise influence over the levers of power, and secure a relative autonomous position. They did this by establishing an international network, a network grounded in living the Orthodox spiritual life, assisted by the re-popularization of hesychasm (the practice of constant prayer, and stillness of thoughts), and the publication of spiritual books. Rooted in the Orthodox Faith, when a Roman achieved any type of influence, they used it to benefit the Church.
Like the Rum Millet, we are living in a type of global Ottoman Empire, and need to develop those kinds of networks. Although the right likes to think of itself as a unified whole, core disagreements over religion, the meaning of life, and identity, are not conducive to a network formed on lived truth. For the Rum Millet, the truth of Orthodoxy was something lived, not merely espoused. Givenness may be gone, but a community that has a living tradition, which shapes its members daily experience, is still within reach. There is nothing like that in the political realm, as it is primarily a religious phenomenon. We must shift our visions to our own traditions, whatever they may be, and work on strengthening those communities so that when a member of our community achieves any kind of influence, it is used to fortify the community at large. Tactics can be gleamed from the early progressive era, and Brooks Adams, but the principle is always: “how can I redirect as many resources as possible to my people, without stepping on anyone’s toes?”
This proposition is not as sexy as Kai Murros style national movement, or convincing the elves to accept us as needed leaders, like Yarvin would lead us to believe, but it is actionable. These past few years I have been active in my own tradition, and have seen the community get stronger, at least locally. A millet-mindset provides the justification, and motivation, for establishing roots, and results are quick to come. Lest I be accused of “giving up”, I hold to all the tactics I have been advocating, with the only modification being that these are now to be used to achieve the status of an autonomous, if not ruling, minority.
I appreciate you giving me some suggestions! I always like hearing about people I haven’t read before.
I have read some Berdyaev, and used to watch Owen Benjamin petty regularly along with Vox Day.
Curious as to whether you are familiar with any of the following writers and thinkers, who all may be relevant to parts of your project:
-- Bruce Charlton (and bloggers close to him): He focuses a lot on a number of relevant strands: 1. the development of human consciousness, and how what was common or even possible to a certain era may no longer be an option; 2. Likewise, different categories of evil -- Luciferic (mere personal sinful, passionate evil), Ahrimanic (systemic, centralizing evil) and Sorathic (destructive, chaotic evil) -- arise at different times and require different strategies to deal with them; 3. Romantic Christianity, which is hard to summarize, but in brief could be said to be the recognition that personal discernment is at the root of Christianity -- not tradition -- and that Christianity is ideally about something positive and aspirational (joint creative activity with God) rather than merely something negative and avoidant (e.g. repentance and avoiding sin). Charlton is quite well versed in all aspects of Christianity, including Orthodoxy (and was also influenced by Seraphim Rose), so even though he could be said to "reject" tradition, he comes from a place of having thought through it in significant depth.
-- Earlier thinkers who influenced Charlton and co: e.g. Owen Barfield, Rudolph Steiner.
-- Nikolai Berdyaev: Important but controversial Orthodox (or Orthodox-adjacent) thinker from the early and mid 20th century, who focused on concepts of the evolution of consciousness, the importance of human freedom and creativity in Christianity.
And as far as examples of people focusing on establishing intentional, traditional communities, Owen Benjamin and "the Bears", as well as The Kurgan (G. Filotto) are both doing good work in different ways.