echoesofeternity.substack.co… True conservatism is the defense of eternity. As eternity is the soul of the world, revolution is always a return to eternal source. That's why conservative revolution is the way.

It is fantastic that our era has shaped a sui generis ideology: the Islamo-jihadist-socialist-sodomite one. It is useless to inquire about the internal coherence of such an ideology, because the coherence is given by what this ideology opposes: Christianity and white European civilization. This ideology was not created by any mysterious elite, but was formed by the interest of groups of sexual minorities, socialists, and Islamists in opposing the West. Being a circumstantial and pragmatic alliance, it will end up being cannibalized by Islam, which is the only worldview of the three that possesses a metaphysics, an ethics, and a profound legal thought. The rest will be shot as in the Iranian Revolution.

For contractual liberalism, they are French. When citizenship is reduced to a contract and a paper record, any ethnic, territorial, blood, linguistic, and cultural bond that should express the link between a citizen of a specific people and its legal order is abolished. That is why, when one says they are not French, one is literally uttering a heresy against liberal political theology. For liberalism, everything is a personal choice—including belonging to a political community. That is why every explanation that appeals to the JQ, external political subversion, “racial communism,” etc., misses the point. European elites literally believe that belonging to a European nation is an individual choice of those who immigrated, and this is the result of liberal ideological hegemony over the mind of the European man. Without eliminating this, these people will continue to be seen as “French.”

The right needs more actors, musicians, poets, philosophers, and Bohemian mystics who live between brothels and hospitals. Without interesting and extreme personalities, a political current becomes a provincial space of careerists. The reason the left is hegemonically dominant is that it possesses the charm of rebellion supplied by the artistic and creative class. Right-wing goody-two-shoes moralism and“God and family” discourse are aseptic. Think of the Crusades, the European religious wars, and the conquest of the New World—these were all romantic and idealistic enterprises. In personal life, this appears in the search by outsider personalities for an Absolute. Without a Bohemian and culturally vibrant right, mere talk of tradition and values remains politically neutral.

Colonialism was the end of the West. In “The Nomos of the Earth,” Schmitt perfectly demonstrated the disappearance of the West as an autonomous spatial and legal order through processes that reached their conclusions with colonialism. A "based" view of colonialism that celebrates it unreflectively fails to grasp that the philosophical grammar employed by colonialism was not rooted in salvation through the Christian faith or the West’s right to military dominion, but rather in the "progress" of civilization. The West was tasked with bringing technical progress, civilization, and enlightenment to "savage and uncultivated regions." In this crucial respect, colonialism represents the culmination of Enlightenment universalism, ultimately fulfilling its own destiny: the Global South became as "progressive" and "enlightened" as the West, subsequently demanding its emancipation—its independence—from the West itself. This eventually led to the dissolution of the West through mass immigration, as the abolition of any “nomos”—that is, a legal order rooted in a specific form of life tied to a particular territory—is a prerequisite for the dominance of the global liberal order. Colonialism and decolonialism are sibling processes within the same geopolitical dialectic: the dismantling of borders and the establishment of a global order. Yet, this remains invisible to those who chase phantoms—such as "gay race communism"—and cling to undying myths rather than engaging with reality itself.

For the Regime, she is a dangerous “right-wing extremist.” A real radical wants a sovereign Europe free of alien cultural elements. Everything outside the Greco-Roman-Christian tradition lies outside the European soul and is incompatible with any European nation. The path to power for authentic radicals will be long and arduous. But no one besides us will affirm the total sovereignty of the European way of life. Not even the “extreme right.”

This is a plague: NPCs entering a political current to perform a public ideal of a group and gain attention. Evola, Schmitt, and Guénon have nothing to do with being “based” or “redpilled”! These authors seek to understand dimensions of cosmic and political reality that were abandoned by modernity. Reducing this to clichés and mental tics is literally the worst vice of modern world: transforming what is dense, sophisticated, and profound into an amorphous paste to fit the vulgar taste of the masses. I have always had a profound feeling of disgust when subjects, books, films, and bands that I like start gaining publicity and ordinary people begin using such things as signaling of taste. Like wearing a Nirvana or Metallica shirt without ever having listened to rock as a fan.

Two points: radical technical innovation is an essential trait of Western Faustian man. It should always be celebrated. Now, the problem is that in our time the only sphere in which Western man manifests his supremacy is technique. What Spengler called “extensive effectiveness”—technology as the mere shell of a civilization that has lost its cultural soul. Where are the Dante or Goethe, the Newton or Kant of our age? Who is our Alexander or Napoleon? Technological innovation does not even require 10% of the genius needed to produce a historical man like Caesar or a genius of the spirit like Kant.

This has always been the goal, and fraternities had their days numbered. The intention is to eliminate any space that creates male bonds and alliances, prevent fun and relaxation, and turn men into neurotic, medicated women. It was clear that feminism would lead to the dissolution of every authentically male space from the moment women entered such places. As they are incapable of taking responsibility, the negative consequences of their thoughtless actions will always be used as an excuse to attack men with a moral cudgel and legal castrations.

Engels’s wife dies and Marx laments it in three lines—the rest of the letter is asking for money. The left is about fleeing the natural responsibilities we have toward ourselves, our family, and the world. Marx was a doctor of philosophy. That opened doors for him to universities, schools, the publishing market, tutoring, etc. But God forbid anyone on the left actually seeks to support himself and his family without extorting someone. In the end, every philosophical justification of the left serves to legitimize an eternal policy of: “muh, I want things, give me free stuff, give me money, I need it.”

The saint is a man of brutal passions, and not a eunuch. The difference is that the saint, after much work, study, and spiritual struggle, sought to direct his desire toward the sublime regions of the cosmos and spirit. That is why I detest the use of the term “degenerate” by moralists. As Saint Augustine used to say, “There is no saint without a past.” Incontinence is one of the sins that God most easily forgives. What God does not easily forgive is the narrow-spirited moralist, the rationalist of doctrine who, like a policeman, watches over the lives of others and casts his judgments as if he were God. That is why saints were generally great sinners, while the moralistic family man who sees “degeneration” everywhere remains always mired in vulgarity and spiritual Pharisaism.

The essence manifests itself in appearance. The strength of a tiger appears in its beauty in a noble and controlled way. The strength of a pitbull manifests in its murderous and brutal appearance. It is possible to immediately read in the anatomy of both the essence of each one. In the same way that when we walk down a street, upon seeing a suspicious individual, we intuit most of the time correctly a possible threat to our safety. The essence of something leaks out and gives itself in its appearance.

The evil of our century is the cult of the Self. “My identity,” “my rights,” “my truth”—everything is always referred back to our personal self as the ultimate and absolute criterion. Lasch was right to call this the culture of narcissism. But the essential thing in life is to immerse our Self in the world: other thinkers, philosophies, artistic styles, worldviews, etc. Not in order to erase the Self, but to strengthen it and make it more mature and wise. The same happens with the right: the individual enters a school—BAPism, Chicago Islamosocialism777, NRx, technogothic accelerationism, Eurasianism, or any other theoretical school—and creates a narcissistic identity with that vision, then begins to reduce the complexity of history, culture, and politics to it, becoming a parrot of clichés. What matters in life is to immerse oneself in it and emerge with a rich and complex Self, capable of seeing the world with free eyes.

I don't believe in a big conspiracy to depopulate the world, nor that there is anything inherently bad about vaccines themselves. There isn't. The problem was a collective hysteria over a flu that killed less than one percent of those infected (mostly elderly), in which the state, political actors, and huge portions of the population acted in an effeminate way and demanded controls over people's lives and jobs because otherwise "we would all die." The reaction of the current pope, as well as of the culture as a whole, was another example of how the culture has shifted toward a feminine key and worldview in which risk must be abolished and, in the name of safety, any control is permitted.