There seems to be a nip in the political air, so to speak, like the first autumn chill presaging the onset of winter.
We all feel it, and suspect there’s a change coming down the pike; whether for good or ill isn’t immediately clear, but the old order is shifting, and a new one is a-borning.
This is a topic that has factored in many discussions among the New Right, and I find it a fascinating thing to live in an age when the old political certitudes—which seemed as solid and unshifting as granite—are being questioned and in many cases rejected and their replacements actively sought.
And the Right has been at the forefront of this new political analysis, and for the first time in a long time it has stirred itself from its long postwar torpor—in which it was shunted into the role of a kind of domesticated and non-threatening opposition, a “neutered right” as some have called it—and begun to aggressively criticize the Liberal shibboleths and cast about for something new. It is, admittedly, an unaccustomed role for many on the Right, the so-called conservatives who always viewed themselves as the defenders of “tradition”—which, in this case, was synonymous with the liberal democratic tradition of America and Western Europe.
After all, it’s not enough to merely criticize a thing, and enumerate its many failures and failings, without also supplying at least a suggestion for its replacement. There’s no dearth of astute and intelligent political analysis on the Right, and it makes sense that inevitably some thinker will assimilate and correlate all this data and begin to assemble new political theories and ideas for the future.
That’s when things start to get interesting.
And, wouldn’t you know, there are quite a few who have begun to posit new ideas for the shape of things to come. Maybe, at this early stage, these ideas are inchoate and imperfectly formed; that’s only natural, but rigorous criticism, debate, and analysis will improve them in time. The important thing, right now, is not to have a perfectly thought-out and impeccably molded political system in place; that’s an impossible fantasy anyhow, something rather like Athena leaping full-grown from the brain of Zeus.
No, that comes later. What matters now is to broadcast the germs of a new system, no matter how outrageous and perhaps even ridiculous they might seem, and then begin the more difficult work of nourishing these germs into the robust oaks that they always had the potential to become.
That has been the way of all novel political systems, including Liberalism itself.
Take, as an example, the work of Charles Haywood, of The Worthy House, who has put forward his own unique idea for a future régime of the Right, conforming to a system or philosophy he calls “Foundationalism.” True to form, he’s even produced a Foundationalist Manifesto, for it is axiomatic these days that every political visionary must necessarily publish a manifesto of some kind.
Haywood even supplies his new political theory with a slogan—“A Politics of Future Past,” which presumably reflects its enticing mélange of traditionalism and futurism, a kind of Janus-headed thing that at once looks to what is best in the past (and, more importantly, what has proven to work), as well as what is most promising in the future.
This is a common theme in Rightist political systems, this fusion of the old and the trusted with the new and untested; it can be found in Haywood’s ideas, as well as those of Guillaume Faye in his notions of Archeofuturism, to say nothing of the Futurism of Fascist Italy and even the technological innovations of Germany in the National Socialist period.
“What is Foundationalism? Foundationalism is a reflection of reality, and through recognizing reality, it aims to maximize the chances of both individual and collective flourishing. It is a way forward, not a way back.
“The twelve pillars of Foundationalism, outlined here, are organic to mankind, rather than an artificial means to create a new man or a new type of society—although Foundationalism, when executed, will indeed be a very different type of society from how we live now. And, in truth, Foundationalism is two things: the renewal of society, or the rebuilding anew of a crumbled society, combined with the long-term maintenance of that society…
“It is not an ideology—it does not offer all the answers. What it offers is a positive vision for a maximized future. The goal is to all muddle through together, to achieve as much human flourishing as reasonably possible, buffering the miseries inherent to human life. Foundationalism offers all members of society a chance for meaning, for transcendence, not through utopian ideology, but through rebasing ourselves in the real.
“Foundationalism is grounded in what is universally known to be true, or what was once universally known to be true; it does not invent new truths. Thus, it contains a strong bias toward traditional Western knowledge and modes of thought, without calcification of application. The asteroid miner who knows his Aristotle and his Aquinas, and extracts metals to build great works with a picture of Henry the Navigator in his rocket ship—he is a Foundationalist.”
Haywood iterates his vision in what he calls “The Twelve Pillars” of Foundationalism, and we will examine these in a future article devoted specifically to this topic. In the meantime, you may read Haywood’s manifesto for yourself, and judge of its applicability to the current situation. Again, what matters is that he has thrown his hat in the ring, so to speak, and offered one possible solution to our present problems.
It’s only a first step, but that’s always the most important one.
Another interesting example of imagining the future from the perspective of the Right is the notion of “Enclavism,” which is advanced by Kaisar of The Hidden Dominion. This political concept, I take it, remains somewhat inchoate and formative, but some notable features have already taken shape.
In short, it seems to be an attempt to overcome the fatal cyclicity of civilizations, what Kaisar refers to as “anacyclosis”—that same ineluctable Nemesis that staggers all nations and cultures, and which has been identified by Traditionalists like René Guénon, historians such as Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee, and political theorists like Neil Howe and William Strauss, the authors of “The Fourth Turning.”
Kaisar’s Enclavism is an attempt to break this cycle, by forming a redoubt of sorts to preserve a worthy civilization from the vicissitudes of anacyclosis:
“Each modern government is destined to collapse given enough time. We need a new government form that addresses the issues leading to the cycle of collapse with an explicit goal to prevent it from happening. To preserve our people and culture.
“Obviously, we can’t create an entirely new government form and address all of its possible future problems and intricacies. So instead, our goal is to create a working, practical framework for a government designed to withstand the test of time.
“This means it is a framework. Not a strict political manifesto. It’s being built to be utilized by many people of different belief systems.
[…]
“…the goal is a framework that can stop the cycle. That is Enclavism. We call it that because it is “enclaved” from the rest of the worldwide governmental forms that will continue operating on the cycle. It is culturally and cyclically unique. Non-degenerative. Hence, an enclave.”
There is much more, and it is a fascinating attempt to struggle with the intractable and seemingly insoluble problems of the modern world. As with Haywood’s Foundationalism, we’ll return to the subject in more detail later, and devote to it the sort of attention that it deserves.
In a nutshell, however, it seems to be a truly scientific approach to grappling with the problem of decline and decay, which is the singular issue confronting Western Civilization—the High Culture of our age, and the only one that matters. This is the kind of effort we need more of, and it’s worthy of emulation.
Haywood’s Foundationalism and Kaisar’s Enclavism are largely geared to the singular problems of America; though they can, I think, be applied to many of the countries of the West in general. I could introduce other examples, and I intend to in future articles; moreover, there’s something to be said for more generalized—that is to say, not restricted to specific nations—right-wing visions of the future, as for instance in the aforesaid L’Archéofuturisme of Guillaume Faye, or the rather dated but always intriguing concept of “Imperium” propounded by Francis Parker Yockey, or even the outlandish (and probably only ephemerally Rightist, if at all) “Prometheism” of Jason Reza Jorjani.
The point is this: the Right has been thinking a great deal about the future, although you might not know it if you restrict your reading to the staid conservative thinkers of yesteryear. The future, we’re often told, is the exclusive preserve of the Left—don’t believe that for a second. You ought to know that’s rankest propaganda by now, and if you haven’t figured that out yet…well, it’s time to get educated.
So that’s it for now—the merest glimpse of some of the new political orders dreamt of by the Right. I’ll have much more to say about it in the future; for now, let this suffice.
Until next time…au revoir.