Post

More from @CCrowley100

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Sep 7

1/ In his “Politics,” Aristotle warns that extreme democracy collapses into tyranny. Both rest on flattery and rule by the weakest, upheld by women and slaves, while tyranny above all depends on foreigners, since citizens despise it.

2/ Women and slaves, he writes, “delight in being flattered.” They welcome rulers who indulge them, where law is lax, discipline is weak, and authority bends to those who by nature should be ruled rather than ruling.

3/ This inversion corrupts the city. Those least fit to rule gain power, those most fit are restrained, and public life is governed by sycophancy. Both tyranny and extreme democracy exalt the weak over the strong.

Read 6 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Sep 7

1/ Let us discuss Plato’s “Timaeus,” the dialogue in which philosophy first dares to speak of the origin of the cosmos.

Of all the dialogues, the “Timaeus” is at once the most audacious in scope and the most far-reaching in its impact. Composed in the fourth century before Christ, it dares to recount nothing less than the origin of the universe, the constitution of the soul, and the place of man within the whole. Where most dialogues proceed through the familiar contest of questions and answers, this work takes the form of a vast monologue, delivered chiefly by the Pythagorean Timaeus of Locri, whose authority rests upon his knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, and cosmology. The “Timaeus” treats creation not as accident or blind motion but as the product of reason. The universe, Plato tells us, is the handiwork of a divine craftsman, the Demiurge, who looks to the changeless order of the eternal forms and, by imitating them, imposes proportion, harmony, and measure upon primordial chaos. In this act philosophy gives to the West its first systematic cosmology, an account that links the visible order of nature to the invisible order of intellect.

For centuries this was the Platonic dialogue par excellence in the Latin West. Cicero translated a portion in the last years of the Republic, and Calcidius in the fourth century supplied a fuller Latin version that remained for nearly a millennium the only substantial access to Plato available to Christian Europe. It was through this channel that the Church Fathers first encountered Plato, and through it that much of Christian theology absorbed the Platonic division of soul and body, the vision of the cosmos as rationally ordered, and the very notion of creation as a purposive act. Yet the historical weight of its influence must not obscure its radical originality. The “Timaeus” is not revelation but philosophy: an attempt by unaided reason to explain why the world exhibits harmony, why the heavens move with regularity, and why the human soul, though exiled in flesh, still recognizes in that celestial order the pattern of its own lost perfection.

To take up this dialogue with understanding is to step into the very beginning of Western thought. Here we are asked why being is superior to becoming, why the soul must rule over the body, and why intellect, never satisfied with mere appearances, strains toward the eternal forms that give structure to all things. The account offered is neither myth in the simple sense nor science as later ages would define it. Though it speaks of triangles, solids, and elements, and though it recounts the sinking of Atlantis and the succession of cosmic cataclysms, it moves on a higher plane. It is what Plato himself calls a eikôs muthos, a “likely story,” which does not claim absolute certainty but reveals, through reason and image, how the soul may orient itself by the eternal pattern that underlies all change.

The present essay will unfold the “Timaeus” in stages, treating it not as a relic entombed in antiquity but as a living text whose questions still shape the highest aims of philosophy.

Today marks Part I. The course of inquiry will follow the dialogue itself: first the dramatic frame of the discourse, then the distinction between being and becoming, then the vision of the divine craftsman. From there we shall turn to the role of the receptacle, the generation of the world-soul, the constitution of the elements, the nature of time, the relation of intellect and necessity, and finally the account of man as a microcosm within the whole.

2/ The “Timaeus” opens as a sequel, carrying forward the conversation of Plato’s most celebrated work, the “Republic.” On the previous day Socrates had described the ideal city, its classes and laws, its guardians and its rulers. Yet he remains unsatisfied. What has been drawn in speech remains fixed, like painted figures that suggest life but lack motion. He therefore asks his companions to animate the city, to set it in action, and to show how it would contend with other states.

The company assembled is carefully chosen. Critias, claiming descent from Solon, recalls the Egyptian priest who told Solon that the Greeks were like children, forgetful of their own antiquity, and who related the tale of Atlantis, the mighty island that once warred with Athens. Hermocrates, the Syracusan general, embodies the statesman’s concern with power and strategy, while Timaeus of Locri represents the philosopher, a man steeped in Pythagorean mysticism, versed in number, harmony, and astronomy. Plato gathers them with deliberate purpose, forming a hierarchy of voices: the politician recalling the lessons of history, the general knowing the nature of conflict, and the philosopher alone capable of speaking of the cosmos.

Even the absence of a fourth guest is meaningful. On the surface it lends the dialogue dramatic realism, as if Plato wished to assure posterity that this was a genuine exchange. More deeply, the triad itself is symbolic: three voices suffice to reflect politics, war, and philosophy, yet their very incompleteness points to the truth that ultimate questions cannot be resolved by the many, but only by the few, and above all by the philosopher, who must bear the greatest burden. It is difficult not to hear in this structure an echo of what Georges Dumézil would later identify as the Indo-European tripartite order of sovereignty, arms, and sacred wisdom, but that is a subject for another section of this essay.

Socrates begins by rehearsing the “Republic” in miniature, repeating its themes so that the new inquiry can build upon them. The cosmos, he implies, is the greatest of all cities, and just as the soul is the microcosm of the city, the city is the microcosm of the universe. The order of man and the order of nature are linked, and philosophy must grasp both if it is to be complete.

It is Critias who first responds, offering the tale of Atlantis as told to Solon by the Egyptian priests. The point, however, is not Atlantis itself but Athens, presented not merely as an ideal city in speech but as a historical reality, noble in its victory over barbaric wealth and hubris. Yet Critias does not continue the tale to its end. He yields the floor to Timaeus, for the story of the cosmos must precede the story of a city. The defeat of Atlantis will belong to another dialogue, the unfinished “Critias.” In the “Timaeus,” the stage is cleared for a higher task: to speak of the beginning of the universe itself.

The dramatic frame is not a mere literary device but shows that politics without cosmology is partial and incomplete. The city must be ordered by the same principles that govern the heavens, and the soul must imitate the harmony of the whole. By setting the scene in this way Plato reminds us that philosophy must not stop with the affairs of men. It must look upward to the order of being itself, for only in the contemplation of that order can the city, the soul, and the world be brought into concord, and it is precisely this order that Plato next sets forth in his distinction between being and becoming.

3/ Plato begins his account by drawing the most fundamental division of all, the distinction between being and becoming. He sets forth two orders of reality: that which always is, eternal and changeless, grasped only by nous (intellect); and that which is always in flux, coming-to-be and passing-away, grasped only by aisthēsis (sense perception) and doxa (opinion). This division marks not only two kinds of objects but two ways of knowing and two modes of existence.

Plato illustrates the point with radical clarity: whatever belongs to becoming has no fixed essence. Fire burns, then vanishes; flesh ages, weakens, and dies. What is seen at one moment has altered by the next. To seek permanence in such things is futile. By contrast, the eternal realities, the forms (eidē), never suffer alteration. They are not images taken from the sensible world but the archetypes upon which sensible things are modeled. The form of fire does not flicker or fade, nor does the form of beauty lose its radiance with time. Each form is an abiding standard: invisible, intelligible, self-subsisting, and timeless. These are not abstractions but living models, and it is precisely because they are immutable that they can guide the craftsman in ordering the cosmos.

From this division arises the notion of the eikōs logos, the “likely account.” If the world is a product of becoming, then any discourse about it must share its character. Speech about the cosmos cannot claim finality, for it is about things that alter from moment to moment. Yet it may still be true in the mode of probability, a faithful image that reflects, however imperfectly, the eternal models after which the world is patterned. The “likely account” is thus neither revelation nor fiction but philosophy’s attempt to speak of the temporal in a way that still directs the mind toward what is eternal. It belongs to the same middle realm as myth, which conveys truth through images, and as reasoning, which approaches truth through concepts. The “Timaeus” oscillates between these modes because only by joining them can philosophy bridge the chasm between what always is and what is always becoming.

The implications extend beyond cosmology to the nature of man. The same division runs through us, for the soul partakes of being while the body belongs to becoming. The soul is eternal, rational, and akin to the forms; the body is mortal, mutable, and the source of disorder. This is not a mere figure of speech but a metaphysical reality: the condition of mankind is a perpetual tension between permanence and flux. The philosopher’s task is therefore both ethical and intellectual, to turn the soul toward what truly is and to guard it from sinking into the realm of what merely becomes. To live well is to align oneself with being; to live poorly is to live as though change and decay were the only realities.

For this reason the “Timaeus” insists that the study of the heavens is not idle speculation but a discipline of the soul. The stars and planets move in perfect circles, reflecting the order of eternity within the rhythms of time. To contemplate them is to recall the proper motion of one’s own soul, which embodiment has thrown into disorder. Astronomy, for Plato, is not primarily a technical science but a sacred practice, a way of restoring harmony to the soul by attuning it to the greater harmony of the cosmos. Education, in this vision, is not the accumulation of facts but the recollection of order, a training that lifts the mind from opinion to intellect.

The legacy of this distinction has been immense. It gave the Christian Fathers their conceptual framework for distinguishing the eternal God from the created world. It furnished later philosophers with the categories of substance and accident, essence and phenomenon. Even modern science, though it confines itself to the study of becoming, rests upon Plato’s conviction that beneath flux lies order, and that truth is something stable to be discovered. In the “Timaeus” this conviction receives its first and most daring expression: the visible universe is but a copy, and the eternal archetype is the true reality, a truth revealed through the work of the divine craftsman.

Read 4 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Sep 5

1/ In 2011, Patrick Buchanan released Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? The title was not rhetorical flourish but a forecast of things to come, a warning that the American nation’s unraveling had entered an advanced stage. Now that the year has arrived, his grim prophecy confronts us with full force. What he described as a looming possibility has hardened into a palpable reality that we all see, feel, and experience every day. The passing of White America is no longer a specter on the horizon but a condition of reality unfolding before our very eyes.

Buchanan wrote of a nation that had exchanged demographic homogeneity for balkanization. The old America, rooted in European descent, language, and inherited folkways, was set upon another course by the mid-1960s. Immigration laws were rewritten, cultural norms overturned, and political elites began to preach the virtue of dispossession as if it were a moral necessity. By the twenty-first century, the historic majority was told to welcome its reduction to minority status. Buchanan named this sickness for what it was: ethnomasochism, the strange delight in one’s own eclipse.

When President Bill Clinton addressed the graduates of Portland State University in 1998 and announced that their children would inhabit a nation with no majority people, the students applauded. A generation trained to rejoice in its own erasure gave proof that America was not merely declining by accident but dying by design.

2/ At the heart of Buchanan’s warning lies the demographic collapse of the American nation. In the chapters “The End of White America” and “Demographic Winter,” he traces the dual catastrophe of declining White fertility and the relentless surge of non-White immigration. What he foresaw is now evident: replacement is not a theory but a measurable fact. The birthrates of European-descended Americans have fallen below replacement, while the gates have remained open to millions from the global South. The transformation, once projected for mid-century, is already visible in every major city and in much of the countryside besides.

This crisis cannot be explained by modernity alone, for secular and industrial societies in the past continued to grow. The deeper cause lies in a culture that has exalted individualism, consumption, and careerism above continuity and life. A generation that should have raised families instead pursued hedonistic self-fulfillment, leaving the future to the least fit. In White nations, this internal weakness has been coupled with an external policy of engineered replacement. Immigration laws after 1965 deliberately dismantled the ethnic character of the United States, turning homogeneity into a crime and diversity into a civic religion.

The result is a nation increasingly unrecognizable to its founders. Communities that once lived in trust now live in suspicion. Public life, once shaped by a shared European inheritance, is fractured into a contest of groups demanding spoils. The old American center has not merely weakened, it has been dissolved. Buchanan’s prediction has proven correct: a people that abandons its demographic foundations abandons its future.

3/ Buchanan frames the collapse not only in demographic terms but in the decline of faith. He writes of the “Death of Christian America” and the “Crisis of Catholicism,” presenting religion as the cement that once held the culture together. There is truth in this, for the great confessions of the West nurtured fertility, discipline, and duty across generations. Christianity in particular gave form to the moral imagination of Europe, binding families and nations under a shared horizon of meaning, sanctifying both sacrifice and continuity. It taught that life itself was a gift to be received and passed on, not consumed and discarded.

This moral order has now eroded. Where faith once encouraged men and women to build families, raise children, and endure hardship with the promise of transcendence, a new spirit has taken hold that regards such duties as burdens. Religion is not the only bond that can secure a people, but in its absence the void has been filled with something far weaker: a shallow ethic of consumption and comfort. In societies that once raised spires to heaven, the highest ambition is now to accumulate things and pursue fleeting diversions.

The deeper loss, then, is not merely theological but civilizational confidence. A people who once built cathedrals and empires now doubts its own right to exist. The baby booms of postwar America and Germany were not eruptions of sudden piety, but of optimism and national pride. Families multiplied because the future seemed worth building. Today, the absence of both faith and pride leaves the modern West sterile. The decline of religion is thus one symptom among many of a larger retreat: a people unwilling to live for more than itself, and therefore unwilling to live at all.

Read 5 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Sep 4

1/ The American nation forgets its founders and calls it progress. Andrew Fraser’s “The WASP Question” is not an elegy but an exploration of decline, revealing how a people traded blood and memory for abstraction and became strangers in the ruins of their own homelands.

2/ What became of the founding people of America? Not the mythic immigrant multitude praised in modern textbooks, but the English stock that planted the first parishes, drafted the earliest colonial charters, fought the Indian wars, and declared independence in their own tongue and on their own terms. In “The WASP Question” Andrew Fraser asks with sober clarity why the Anglo-Saxon Protestant, once master of the institutions he created, now moves through their remnants as though he were only a guest.

This is a book about displacement, not merely political or social, but spiritual. It recounts the fall of a people who surrendered their ancestral memory to construct a universal republic, only to find themselves despised by the very order they had summoned into being. “Even in their own eyes,” Fraser observes, “WASPs now constitute little more than a demographic abstraction altogether devoid of the soul and the substance of a serious people.”

The origin of this decline, he argues, lies in the decision to exchange ethno-religious identity for constitutional idealism. The Founders, overwhelmingly Anglo-Protestant, raised up a civic faith in place of the older bond of blood and church. What had once been a concrete and embodied culture was reduced to an abstract doctrine of rights. A people rooted in land, lineage, and liturgy transformed themselves into apostles of a borderless creed. The commonwealth yielded to the marketplace, the Protestant conscience dissolved into global moralism, and the descendants of the founders became strangers to themselves.

Fraser does not call for a shallow political restoration. His horizon is deeper: palingenesis, a rebirth through memory. What he envisions is not the restoration of the American Republic, but the resurrection of the Anglo-Saxon spirit that preceded it, tribal, Christian, and conscious of itself.

This review will unfold in that spirit. It will trace Fraser’s account of WASP decline from the upheavals of the Reformation and the Revolution to the rise of managerial liberalism. It will consider his critique of civic nationalism, his theological reflections, and his call for a new aristocracy of memory. And it will weigh his vision not as lament, but as a possible path toward ancestral return in an age that no longer knows its own face.

3/ To understand Fraser’s argument one must look not to 1776, but to the deeper currents of English history: to Alfred, to the Reformation, to the Glorious Revolution. The ethnonym “WASP,” White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, is commonly used as insult or as sociological shorthand. Fraser treats it instead as a historical identity, the product of an ethno-religious order in which blood, law, and faith were fused into a single form. Properly understood, the WASP was not a mere social class but the architect of the Anglo-American commonwealth, a figure whose inheritance has now been abandoned by his descendants.

Fraser argues that the American Republic did not continue this inheritance but ruptured it. The Constitution was not the culmination of English liberty but its substitution. “The Founding Fathers,” he writes, “sacrificed their ancestral identity on the altar of universal principles.” They replaced throne and altar with an abstract contract, imagining themselves no longer as a distinct people but as citizens of a civic church. Their republicanism severed bonds with Old World hierarchy and joined Protestant individualism to Enlightenment egalitarianism. The system that emerged could not long withstand the logic of its own abstractions.

The consequences were decisive. In place of a concrete people, defined by lineage and faith, there arose a universal idea. Fraser calls this a “biocultural revolution,” by which Anglo-Americans dissolved their identity into the abstraction of liberty and equality. In the early colonies, folk, faith, and government still formed a unity. By the close of the nineteenth century, under the pressure of immigration, industrialization, and liberal moralism, that unity had disintegrated. The Constitution had become scripture, the state a surrogate church, and WASPs, once sovereign in their own house, had been reduced to deracinated managers of an empire that no longer spoke in their name.

Fraser traces this transformation without nostalgia. He neither conceals the contradictions of the past nor embellishes it as a golden age. He insists instead on the historical reality of WASP America as a founding ethnos whose institutions bore its mark. From the New England township to the Southern planter aristocracy, from Harvard Yard to the Anglican vestry, the Republic carried the stamp of English Protestant fathers. That stamp is now nearly effaced. What remains is ritual patriotism, corporate nationalism, and a civil religion detached from the people who first gave it meaning.

Here Fraser strikes at the root of civic nationalism. A nation is not a contract but an inheritance. A people who forget themselves cannot be preserved by constitutions or flags. In Fraser’s judgment, the American experiment did not extend Anglo-Saxon civilization. It consigned it to the grave.

Read 8 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Aug 25

1/ For generations, men far greater than I have sought to name the source of the West’s supremacy. In its essence, the answer is the uniqueness of the European peoples. Wherever European man has set foot, he has transformed the world, shaping wilderness into cities, tribes into nations, and myth into history.

No less have men sought to explain why the West now declines. The truth is equally plain to anyone who still possesses the capacity for honest thought. Europeans are being displaced in their own homelands. Civilizations are not sustained by slogans or institutions alone. They are carried by blood, by the living continuity of a people. When that people dwindles, society corrodes, and when it is replaced, the civilization ceases to exist.

The men of old knew this instinctively, for they lived beneath the eyes of their ancestors. A name was not a casual designation but a sacred burden, a banner of memory carried forward through time. To disgrace one’s line was to wound one’s very being; to ennoble it was to prove oneself the spearpoint of descent, the flowering of all that had gone before. Each generation stood within this chain, compelled to honor what had been received, yet also pressed by the desire to surpass it. In this there arose a tension deeper than philosophy, a law inscribed in blood itself: the obligation to remain a son of the clan, and the longing to stand apart as a man whose name would echo after his death.

It was from this tension that Europe drew her distinction among civilizations. In India, men were bound within castes where greatness meant the perfection of a role already fixed, conformity raised to a principle of eternity. In China, the weight of Confucian propriety pressed the individual into the service of family and empire until personality itself became a shadow cast by hierarchy. In Japan, courage and discipline were exalted in the figure of the samurai, but his nobility ended in self-extinction before his lord; he could die with beauty, but he died faceless, and no sagas were sung of him.

Europe alone preserved another order, in which the individual did not vanish into the collective but rose above it as its crown. Homer sang not of a people dissolved into anonymity but of Achilles, whose wrath bent the fate of armies. The tragedians of Athens carried this further, showing how the choices of a single king could reverberate through time and overturn the destinies of nations. And in the North, the sagas of Iceland and the legends of the Volsungs gave immortality to men who defied both kin and fate, standing forth from the tribe with such force that their names became indistinguishable from the destiny of their people.

2/ To strive for renown was never simply to indulge pride or to advance the clan by cunning calculation. It was to place oneself before the eyes of gods and men, to gamble one’s life against time itself. When a man distinguished himself, his triumphs magnified the strength of his kin and secured the continuation of the tribe. Women sought the one whose name resounded louder than the rest, for in him they saw not merely a protector but the very fountain of life renewed. Yet this striving cannot be reduced to what modern science calls reproductive fitness, for the heroic impulse often cut against survival.

Achilles, when offered the choice between a long but obscure life and a short life crowned by glory, chose the latter. His renown would outlive him, and that permanence was of greater worth than longevity. The Norse sagas are filled with men who fought duels or avenged insults that to modern eyes seem trivial, willingly spilling blood and forfeiting safety to preserve honor. These were not careful strategies of adaptation but wagers with eternity itself. They reveal a people who valued the story of their lives more than the continuation of their breath.

And the men themselves spoke in these terms. They did not justify their actions as prudent or useful but as worthy of remembrance. In the Hellenic world the word was kleos, glory or fame, the song that endures after death. In the North it was lof, the praise that lives in speech and memory. Both terms point to the same truth: that life only achieves permanence when it is preserved in the words of others, when it becomes part of the story. A man might perish, but if he had lived greatly his name could not die.

This was the consciousness of saga, the awareness that life itself is speech. The Old Norse saga means “that which is spoken,” the tale that carries a life across generations. In Greek thought, the parallel is logos, a word that means not only “speech” but also “gathering,” “reckoning,” and “order.” In Heraclitus, logos names the hidden harmony of the world, the measure by which all things are disclosed. To live for saga, then, is to live toward speech, to act in such a way that one’s life can be said, that it may be gathered into the memory of the people and aligned with the order of things.

The hero thus became the visible form of the tribe’s continuity. He was not merely a vessel of descent but a figure who gave shape and brilliance to descent. His deeds, once spoken, became part of the people’s hoard of memory. Each saga, whether of Achilles or Sigurd or Beowulf, was a fragment of eternity wrested from the flow of time: to live in such a way was to accept death, yet to defy oblivion.

3/ Not every life could be remembered, yet the aspiration to be worthy of remembrance shaped the character of our ancestors. To live greatly was not only to survive, but to live toward death with eyes open, knowing that only in death would life be complete, sealed, and judged. So long as a man lived, his story was unfinished, open to reversal or ruin. At death, his tale was fixed, and the verdict of his people would stand as his immortality or his damnation. Death was therefore not the enemy but the consummating moment, the point at which the shape of a life was revealed.

To live with this awareness was to treat every deed as a line in a tale, to choose actions not for advantage alone but for what was fitting, noble, and “worthy of me.” The Greeks spoke of aretē, excellence, the quality that gave form and brilliance to a life. The Northern peoples spoke of drengskapr, manly virtue, by which one proved oneself not only brave but true. These were not abstractions, but standards by which men measured their deeds against the eternal tribunal of memory.

This consciousness of death and of fame gave form to life itself. Without it, men fall into the half-life of those who think only of safety. And that is precisely the condition of modern man. He believes himself liberated from the past, when in fact he is enslaved by forces he cannot name. He imagines that he has freed himself from the chains of blood, lineage, and duty, when in truth he has only severed himself from meaning. He lives for the moment, never for the eternal. He recoils from destiny, from the discipline of form, from the limits that once shaped men into greatness.

He clings to life as if it were the highest good, fearing death above all, and thereby loses the very thing that gives life its greatness. He achieves safety but forfeits distinction. He becomes interchangeable, faceless. He is not remembered, because nothing he does is worth saying. Surrounded by machines that magnify his reach, his soul withers into inertia, slipping between the animal and the vegetative. Modern man has not transcended the saga; he has fallen beneath it, beneath even the level of those who once lived only to serve their caste or their lord. He is subhuman not through cruelty or savagery, but because his life contains nothing enduring.

The grandeur of the West was always tragic, for our ancestors knew that nothing endures. Not even the gods could escape fate. The Greeks told of the Moirai, the Fates, who spun and cut the thread of life, binding even Zeus himself. The Norse spoke of an inexorable destiny that determined the end of gods and men alike. Even Yggdrasil, the world-tree, would one day wither. Yet it was precisely because all things were destined to perish that our people sought to wrench permanence from the impermanent, to preserve the fleeting moment in story, to create fragments of eternity in the midst of time.

This is why our ancestors lived toward death, not in despair but in grandeur. For them, death crowned the life, and remembrance bestowed a second existence beyond the grave. This awareness shaped their courage, their poetry, their art, and their politics. They knew the world was passing, but they lived as if glory were eternal. In this tragic wisdom resided the essence of the West.

Read 5 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Aug 24

1/ There is no greater lie than the illusion of Left versus Right.

The illusion begins not with eternal truths of politics but with the intellectual vanity of the Enlightenment. In the eighteenth century, European thinkers proclaimed that mankind could be remade through reason, that centuries of tradition could be overturned by argument, that the fabric of authority woven from throne and altar could be dissolved by pamphlets and constitutions. The Enlightenment was not only a philosophical movement but a political wager: that society could be rationalized, equalized, and universalized, that men could be abstracted from their peoples and treated as identical units of an ideal humanity.

This experiment culminated in the French Revolution, when the old order was swept aside in the name of “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” It was in this moment of destruction that the terms Left and Right were born, not as metaphysical categories but as a matter of physical seating. Deputies who favored revolution sat on the left side of the National Assembly, while those who wished to preserve the monarchy sat on the right. From this trivial arrangement a new political cosmology was fabricated, as if the placement of men in a hall determined the destiny of nations.

The categories hardened in rhetoric even as their meaning shifted. What had been a geographical convenience became a moral code. The Left was said to embody progress, the Right to embody reaction. The Enlightenment dream of remaking mankind was projected onto the chamber itself, where sides of the room now stood for sides of history. In truth, what was born was not a science of politics but a myth of polarity, a binary that would mask the deeper realities of descent and power, and in time serve as an instrument to strip Whites of their identity while cloaking their dispossession in the language of ideology.

2/ From their accidental birth, the categories of Left and Right never held firm. They stretched and twisted with each generation until the terms no longer marked consistent principles but only shifting alignments of power. What counted as liberal in one century became conservative in the next; what was once condemned as reactionary later reappeared as reform. The binary proved incapable of anchoring political reality because it was never founded on anything more substantial than expedience.

The nineteenth century revealed this mutability with merciless clarity. Liberals who once defended property and the free market against aristocratic privilege became, in time, the advocates of universal suffrage and redistribution. Conservatives who once upheld hierarchy and tradition soon made their peace with industrial capitalism, defending not throne and altar but profit and parliament. By the twentieth century, entire regimes could switch places on the spectrum without altering their essential methods: communism and fascism both claimed to be revolutionary, both were accused of reaction, both were denounced as Left or Right depending only on who wielded the label.

The present age is no different. Causes that only yesterday were the banners of progress, such as same-sex marriage, unrestricted speech, and suspicion of concentrated wealth, have been abandoned by progressives themselves, who now demand censorship and celebrate corporate power as long as it drapes itself in the language of diversity. Conservatives, once defenders of religion and restraint, now defend pornography as free expression and global finance as the essence of liberty. That the same terms are used to describe such shifting positions is proof enough that Left and Right are not realities but symbols, empty vessels into which elites pour whatever serves their interests, while the deeper facts of ancestry and peoplehood are excluded from consideration.

3/ If the categories of Left and Right lack substance, why have they endured? The answer lies not in truth but in control. They function as masks by which regimes disguise the real axis of power. By dividing Whites into rival camps and encouraging their quarrels, the ruling order prevents recognition of deeper realities: the permanence of descent, the continuity of genes, the unity of peoplehood, and the material interests of elites. The spectacle of Left against Right is a managed performance, staged so that Whites expend their strength in empty disputes while the true structure of domination remains untouched.

This explains why both sides, despite their advertised differences, converge on the same prohibitions. Whether labeled progressive or conservative, the establishment is united in hostility toward Whites organizing in their own collective interest. One wing cloaks the denial in the rhetoric of progress and equality, the other in the language of color-blind individualism. Yet race is not reducible to the pigment of skin but to the deeper inheritance of blood and memory, the transmission of culture and character through generations. And when the moment of crisis comes, when a White man is assaulted not for what he believes but for what he is, no one asks his opinion on tax policy or foreign wars. The mask slips, and the reality beneath is revealed.

The fraud of Left and Right is therefore not a harmless confusion but an instrument of dispossession. It divides Whites into hostile camps while ensuring that both camps serve the same masters. It offers the illusion of choice while concealing the continuity of power. By keeping Whites trapped in the false quarrel of ideology, it prevents them from awakening to the truth that politics begins and ends with their survival as a people.

Read 7 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Chad Crowley

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @CCrowley100

Chad Crowley

Chad Crowley

Chad Crowley

Chad Crowley

Chad Crowley

Chad Crowley

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!