Death to “muh culture”


"More Mayberry" isn't going to fix America, only Traditionalism and respect of Faith, Race and Nation will fix our problems.

“More Mayberry” isn’t going to fix America, only Traditionalism and respect of Faith, Race and Nation will fix our problems.

Political Hat wrote a nice bit about the Left’s rejection of values and lifestyles associated with conservatism in America, and how they rail against “normalcy” in the name of Liberal progressivism.  I agree with Political Hat’s statement that the Liberal-progressive left are bad for society, but their rejection of bourgeois American values is not unjustified, only misguided.

The Liberal-Progressive community which derides hetero-normative standards, Traditional gender roles, Christianity and the organic Nation truly are degenerate and disgusting, make no mistake about it.  However, they are trying to fight something which we, as Traditionalists, must also fight– the bourgeois lifestyle and mentality.

The bourgeois class, and those who constitute it, are going to crash their Ship of Fools into the iceberg of multiculturalism, secularism and social justice.  The captains will go down with the boat, and the whole crew with them, but they’ll never recognize the real reason that the boat sank.  They’ll go to their watery graves believing the reason that their multicultural society sank was because they didn’t make the boat big enough, as opposed to the fact that they shouldn’t have been sailing in those waters in the first place.       

Italian philosopher Julius Evola defines the bourgeoisie not strictly as a social class, rather as something more pervasive and destructive than a simple social aggregation.

“I do not mean bourgeois so much in the sense of an economic class, but rather its counterpart: there is an intellectual world, an art, custom, and general view of life that, having been shaped in the last century parallel to the revolution of the Third Estate, appears as empty, decadent, and corrupt.”

As Evola explains, an anti-bourgeois stance is right and just, and a “resolute overcoming of all this is one of the conditions required to solve the present crisis of our civilization.”

The Communist and Marxist Left has a strong stance against the bourgeois lifestyle, but their only solution to the “bourgeois problem” is to drag all of society down to the depths of degeneracy, ensuring that nobody is able to occupy the social and economic bourgeois class status.  The Liberal-Progressive model of Cultural Marxism is right to oppose the bourgeois lifestyle, but their alternative is just as damaging, leading to a debased humanity which Evola categorically denounced as a danger.

“The [Marxist solution] corresponds to a direction that leads even lower, toward a collectivized and materialist subhumanity, under the banner of Marxist realism — to social and proletarian values against the ‘bourgeois decadence.’ … In this case, the result of the liquidation of the bourgeois world may amount only to a further regression: we go toward what is below rather than above the person.  It is the opposite of what happened in the great ‘objective’ civilizations (to use Goethe‘s expression), which fostered anonymity and disdain for the individual, though against the  background of superior, heroic, and transcendent values.”

The better alternative as Evola describes, well, the only sustainable one at any rate, is more radical than what either camp of contemporary Liberals or Conservatives are able to conceive of or execute.

“[One] may conceive a realistic view and a struggle against the bourgeois spirit, individualism, and false idealism that is more radical than the struggle waged against them by the Left, and yet oriented upward, not downward. … Everything that is anti-bourgeois in this sense does not converge toward the communist world; on the  contrary, it is the premise for the emergence of new men and leaders, capable of erecting true barriers against global subversion, in correspondence with the establishment of a new climate, one that will be endowed with its own unique expression even in terms of culture and civilizations.”

Much as I detest the Left’s disgusting infatuation of debasing society by erasing anything which might indicate a conservative mindset, I am equally repulsed by the Right’s fetishistic romancing of “1950s America.”

Every time I see someone post an Andy Griffith Show meme declaring that “America needs more Mayberry,” I die a little bit inside.

Andy Griffith supports Obamacare, Opie (Ron Howard) is a raging liberal Obama-supporter, and Gomer Pyle (Jim Nabors) “married” his male friend earlier this year.

No, conservative America’s romance with Mayberry is not going to fix the problem.  It’s probably what got us into this mess in the first place.  Obsessing about “muh culture” is not going to “take back America” and restore some fabled past.  Mayberry was, apparently, full of liberals and queers, so you might want to think a bit more about which fabled past you’re lusting over.

You can’t bring back the past, but you can find an equivocal pleasure in the present by adopting what Evola calls a “worldview.”

“[A worldview], rather than being an individual affair, proceeds from a tradition and is the organic effect of forces that have shaped a certain type of civilization; at the same time, a pane subiecti [from the subject’s perspective] the worldview manifests itself as a sort of ‘inner race’ and an existential structure.  In every civilization, but the modern one, it was a ‘worldview’ and not a ‘culture’ that permeated the various strata of society; where culture and conceptual thought were present, they never enjoyed primacy, for their function was a simple expressive means and organs in the service of the worldview.”

Culture is important, and so is the intellectualism of the bourgeois lifestyle, but these are not the ends– they are a means.  To obsess about “muh culture” is not as damaging as the Marxian solution to the “bourgeois problem,” but it’s not any more productive or justifiable.

Evola says it most clearly, explaining that the idea of “culture” without a worldview is a regressive fetishism, and that there can be no political movement without a worldview.

“‘Culture’ in the modern sense ceases to be a danger only when those who deal with it already have a worldview. … Even in a political movement [a worldview] constitutes the primary element, because only a worldview has the power to produce a given human type and thus to impart a specific tone to a given community.”

A love, appreciation and protection of those things we identify as belonging to our culture is a good start, but it must not be our primary concern.  Obsessing about “muh culture”, or “muh social justice” is going to get you a ticket to board the Ship of Fools.  If we’re serious about throwing the captain and officers overboard and fixing our “bourgeois problem”, we need to recognize that only the transcendent truths of Faith, Race and Nation as realized through Traditionalism can save us.

<a href=""></a>

Creative Commons License
This work by Thomas Buhls is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at


Drake Shelton

“However, they are trying to fight something which we, as Traditionalists, must also fight– the bourgeois lifestyle and mentality.”

>>>It is only when one realizes that the bourgeois is a product of Feudal Christianity’s rejection of the Torah (Num. 15:16-Bishop Adalbero of Laon: The Tripartite Society) that one can face the true nature of your foe: Christianity itself.


Even Karl Marx said that the Proletariat will become Bourgeois if left to their own devices. Hardly a Christian phenomenon.

My point in emphasizing this is that people naturally move away from the debased “bottom-rung” which the Marxist solution seeks to drag everyone down to. The trouble is getting them to transcend the bourgeois lifestyle and mentality.


You mean left without the protections and restrictions of Num. 15:16. If you want to lump in Christianity with all the Bible hating philosophies of the world I’ll give you a hearty Amen! I’m just saying that in the west Christianity has been that force that has kept Biblical laws out of society.

I thought your point was to expose the Bourgeois and I’m simply saying that the Bourgeois arose in the west through Christian feudalism.


I think there are a number of conditions in which the bourgeois mentality and lifestyle can development, and western Christianity is not exempt from this.

The cause of the bourgeois mentality and lifestyle might be very many, but I’m more concerned with the solution and a positive alternative.

Drake Shelton

The Torah’s laws against Feudal Caste (Num. 15:16); its laws against usury (Deut. 23:19); and its Jubilee laws, along with its basic endogamtic tribalism pretty much solve all of the problem of western civilization.

Leave a Reply