Techno-Traditionalism Against Modernity

At the root of our failure to progress lies the inculcation of a vast web of subtle progressivist influences on our thinking, the greatest and most paralyzing of which is the notion that traditionalism and conservatism are synonymous. The Radical Traditionalist metapolitical precepts–honor, fidelity, hierarchy, and transcendence–aren’t conservative values rooted in the past. They’re perennial precepts rooted in all who reject the self-worship, degeneracy, and materialism of this Mercantile Age.

The opening crawl of the first Star Wars film begins with the line, “A long time ago, in a galaxy far away…,” rooting the franchise in a fundamentally traditionalist, perennial, and cyclical perspective of history, in contrast with the Star Trek franchise which was rooted in the merchant’s progressivist mythos. Contrary to popular belief, there’s nothing intrinsically “progressive,” “modern,” or “futuristic” about technology in and of itself. Throughout history, technology has advanced, receded, shifted focus, and undergone unexpected paradigm shifts; all of which contradict the Mercantile mythos of technology as something gifted to us by the Enlightenment in opposition to throne and altar.

Religious institutions have played a key role throughout history of preserving knowledge, cultivating scientific inquiry, and investing in technological progress. Regretfully, just as many admirers of the 20th century’s National Socialists often end up admiring and endorsing much of the exaggerations and lies about them peddled by the Allied post-war propagandists, many Radical Traditionalists and Medievalists mistakenly defend and romanticize the false “Dark Age” narrative of a Western Civilization which resisted and opposed worldly knowledge, scientific inquiry, and technological progress.

These misguided Medievalists are also victims of post-war propaganda, with the war being the French Revolution and its sister revolutions throughout Europe and North America against any and all aristocratic and ecclesiastical authority. The New Right is trapped in a false frame, one which blinds our movement to the direction things are rapidly heading. We are heading into a Techno-Traditionalist future where technological progress becomes not merely helpful but fully central to defeating the Jewish oligarchs, their multinational corporate capitalist lackeys, their metapolitical worldview, and their geopolitical world order.

Russia is currently at the center of the nascent development of a Traditionalist dipole against the forces of Modernity based in the West and Israel. A wonderful thing about global mega-trends is that they’re much bigger than the individuals and organizations involved. One needn’t lose sleep over Alexander Dugin’s contradictions and inconsistencies, because he’s riding a wave which he neither created nor can he direct. Dugin’s closer than any other prominent geopolitical theoretician to the truth because he relies on an experimental approach to ideology, and is steadily drifting more and more towards a Traditionalism vs. Modernity framing of his metapolitics with each iterative experiment.

All Putin, Dugin, the Iranians, the Chinese, or any other historical actors can decide is which side of this historical process they wish to be on; the emergent forces of tribe and tradition or the waning forces of finance capital and neo-colonialism. The Russians aren’t destined to rule the 21st Century because of geography. The Chinese aren’t destined to dominate the 21st Century because it’s “their turn.” Every nation’s leaders can and should be expected to be biased and to push a self-promoting narrative, but no man or institution should ever be fully trusted as a stand-in for the perennial Radical Traditionalist precepts which are gathering strength.

Not Putin. Not Dugin. Not Assad. Not Trump. Not Coulter. Not Cruz. Measure every man (and woman) according to the permanent metric of tribal sovereignty, noble hierarchy, loving stewardship, fidelity, and faith. All of those aforementioned historical actors are, to varying degrees and in varying ways, reflecting and projecting challenges to the globalist oligarchs, but we’re loyal to an abstract ideal, not a party, a movement, an institution, or a man. Conversely, we shouldn’t allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and should be right in the middle of all the restorationary projects and processes bubbling up all around us. We should promote the good, reject the bad, and cleverly exploit the opportunities as they’re presented.

If Vladimir Putin leads us in circles, if Donald Trump drops the ball, then new leaders will emerge in their place. The Mercantile Age is exhausting itself, and individuals and institutions are gradually and organically arriving at challenges to Modernity, and–most importantly–technological advancement is weakening the oligarchs’ leveraged means of institutional power projection.

Nearly all American ideologues have been immersed so deeply in the Mercantile Age that they can’t even grasp how the world could or would operate when money’s no longer the cardinal means of power projection. Generally, they assume “anarchy,” more appropriately understood as “chaos” would prevail in a post-corporate world. What will reign after the Mercantile Age is exactly what reigned before the Mercantile Age: throne and altar; tribe and tradition; faith, family, and folk. While empires, alliances, and unsustainable artificial systems of control rise and wane from age to age, the traditional families, the ethnic tribes, and the traditional faiths eternally recur.

I would seem an unlikely supporter of Julian Assange and the Anonymous hacking community. I have, after all, been charged with cleaning up after one of Assange’s doxxing operations and sites I administer are regularly targeted by anti-White hacktivists who operate under the nebulous “Anonymous” banner. In fact, there’s an elaborate campaign going on right now to censor our activism. I’ll win, both because I’ve got mad skills and because the game is rigged in my favor.

Technology is integrally on the side of free expression, which is integrally on the side of the truth, which is integrally on our side, …because we’re right. Even if they take down my host provider, the site will spring back up elsewhere within hours. Even if Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian manage to convince Google, the Internet backbone providers, and the United Nations to ban our speech as “hate speech,” we’ll bubble back up on a Tor node on the darknet within hours. Even if they shut down our bank accounts and achieve a European-style banning of our group as a “hate group,” there are technological solutions to that problem, too.

Back in 2011, Assange met with Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt in the English country cottage where Assange was on house arrest.

They outlined radically opposing perspectives: for Assange, the liberating power of the Internet is based on its freedom and statelessness. For Schmidt, emancipation is at one with U.S. foreign policy objectives and is driven by connecting non-Western countries to Western companies and markets. These differences embodied a tug-of-war over the Internet’s future that has only gathered force subsequently.

In the 2014 Newsweek article, Assange offers us a brief glimpse into the conspiratorial network of corporations, secret organizations, Jewish power brokers, and quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations (QUANGOs) which drive and steer the Atlanticist power structure.

The stated reason for the visit was a book. Schmidt was penning a treatise with Jared Cohen, the director of Google Ideas, an outfit that describes itself as Google’s in-house “think/do tank.”

I knew little else about Cohen at the time. In fact, Cohen had moved to Google from the U.S. State Department in 2010. He had been a fast-talking “Generation Y” ideas man at State under two U.S. administrations, a courtier from the world of policy think tanks and institutes, poached in his early twenties.

He became a senior advisor for Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton. At State, on the Policy Planning Staff, Cohen was soon christened “Condi’s party-starter,” channeling buzzwords from Silicon Valley into U.S. policy circles and producing delightful rhetorical concoctions such as “Public Diplomacy 2.0.” On his Council on Foreign Relations adjunct staff page he listed his expertise as “terrorism; radicalization; impact of connection technologies on 21st century statecraft; Iran.”

It was Cohen who, while he was still at the Department of State, was said to have emailed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to delay scheduled maintenance in order to assist the aborted 2009 uprising in Iran. His documented love affair with Google began the same year when he befriended Eric Schmidt as they together surveyed the post-occupation wreckage of Baghdad. Just months later, Schmidt re-created Cohen’s natural habitat within Google itself by engineering a “think/do tank” based in New York and appointing Cohen as its head. Google Ideas was born.

Within a few short paragraphs, so much emerges. We have Jewish agents pulling the strings of the “color revolutions” and “Arab Springs” in the Islamic World. We have the multinational corporations answering to and investing in these projects. The whole incestuous world of Jewish Power, multinational corporate greed, and federal government power all coordinated and synchronized behind their shared vision of a borderless, greed-driven, Jewish-dominated secular atheist global marketplace.

Google Ideas recently made the news by entrusting Zoe Quinn, the maniacal slut who’s been campaigning against the technology industry’s alleged “misogyny,” to speak before the United Nations on the menace of “cyberbullying.” Supposedly, and I’m trying to be objective, “cyberbullying” is not only inclusive of personally harassing private people in their private lives, but is also inclusive of any and all pointed political disagreement with liberals.


It’s boggling to imagine Zoe Quinn speaking before the United Nations about how hostile reactions to her aggressive political campaign to silence and censor technologists have hurt her feelings and must be censored. A storied international organization which has violent genocides, horrific war crimes, grinding refugee crises, and godawful famines to deal with stopped what it was doing and gave the floor to an Internet troll who insists that the people responding to her trolling must be censored and prosecuted by literally the whole big wide world.


The whole thing would be comical if this bipolar bimbo weren’t the avatar of a vast sinister conspiracy by the multinational corporations to rein in the Internet and ratchet down the flow of information back to where things were in the eighties, when the multinational corporations and their Jewish overlords had a complete monopoly on the transmission and spin on global information and communication. But then it all turns comical again when one realizes that Zoe Quinn has the entire matrix of multinational corporations behind her, the full weight and force of world government on her side, President Obama firmly in her camp, the United States military beholden to her radical feminist agenda, …and yet the Internet is still roasting her silly ass!

We must shake off our antiquarian prejudices and recognize that technological progress is central to the struggle for the twin identitarian and traditionalist causes. We were all led to believe by this regime’s “experts” that the Internet would be a powerful tool for “progress” and Modernity, but on balance it’s proven to be the opposite. The Internet has empowered traditional families to more effectively and efficiently homeschool their children. The Internet has made it devilishly difficult for the elites to pull off their propaganda campaigns both at home and abroad. The Internet has made it impossible to conceal their crimes or silence their opponents.

In the next stage, crypto-currency technology will strike at the very heart of the financial systems they rely on for their power projection. Dissident projects like our own and related projects will reach a stage of development, complexity, and resource acquisition where we’ll be capable of real world power projection. All of the disparate movements for identity, tradition, faith, family, and folk the world over will begin building relationships and alliances in opposition to the oligarchs, recognizing that we all belong to a Traditionalist International in a common struggle for humanity against corporate greed and Zionist machinations.

And when we’re all united around the perennial and transcendent truths that unite all of humanity against the dehumanizing forces of Modernity, all of the capitalist oligarchs, Zionist warmongers, and their countless apparatchiks will look every bit as pathetic, silly, and vulnerable as Zoe Quinn looked yesterday when she spoke before the United Nations on behalf of Google Ideas.


Matt Parrott

I’ll agree with that assertion if you’ll agree with the assertion that the Iron Guard and the Islamic Republic of Iran are better examples of fascism than the NSDAP.


Ideologically speaking, the only blueprint I’ve seen similar to what we’re dealing with is what the Germans devised. To go from the gross, hyper-Judaic Weimar Republic to Nationalsocialism virtually overnight is a feat that deserves more study than the Iron Guard–although that’s not to take away from the value of the latter’s struggle. The Germans were able to synthesize science and tradition in a way the largely rural and zealously religious Iron Guard failed to.

Iran takes a middle point between the German revolution and Iron Guard. I’m actually writing an article about Iran and why their revolution is important for whites and the West. The only revolution in history that took place in peace time and amidst growing economic prosperity was the Iranian one, pretty remarkable.

I guess I’m more skeptical than you on whether organized religion needs to play a fundamental central role in real world state operation, rather than a passive one as part of the nation’s identity. This is my sole criticism of both Iran and Iron Guard.

Take Iran for example, it has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. Despite its sophisticated Socialist economy that grants as many benefits as any Scandinavian social-democracy, people aren’t having kids, while the Jews in Israel are having many. Yet, the Guardians council can’t just ban birth control by decree because…it’s not in the Koran.

I find these predicaments to be needless, even somewhat amusing. The same loophole in Iran is used to allow transexual surgeries legal, as if Muhammad would’ve ever even imagined such a thing. My view of Fascism combines heritage with reason.

Matt Parrott

I guess I’m more skeptical than you (and the Iron Guard, and other people from that branch of fascism) on whether organized religion needs to play a fundamental central role in real world state operation, rather than a passive one as part of the nation’s identity. This is my sole criticism of both Iran and Iron Guard.

Within the Islamic World, you actually have two quite mature and operational examples of the contrast between a Traditionalist government (Iran) and a Fascist government (Ba’athist Syria). The difference lies in whether the palingenetic ultranationalist mythos is transcendent or material.

Every political institution has a mythos and metapolitical framework. With America, it began as the classical liberal Enlightenment narrative and has gradually transitioned into the current post-colonial anti-white “progressive” narrative of progressing away from white racism and patriarchy and stuff.

Fascism is dandy and all, and I’ll proudly sport the label when there’s a normie or a hostile around. But I believe it’s structurally inferior in that it’s rooted in the material and social dasein rather than hooked on an abstract transcendent reference point.

I believe the best analogy would be to compare two very noble husbands, an atheist and a Christian one. The atheist husband is a patriarch and head of household who lives for the service and support of his wife and children, while the Christian husband actually perceives his service of his wife and children as the service of Christ by proxy.

I believe there’s a gradual drift toward selfishness and indulgence in the former, and an integenerational drift toward decadence as well, which a fixed metaphysical reference point can more effectively resist. I think Christian patriarchal marriages are stronger and more durable than atheist patriarchal marriages.

Take Iran for example, it has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. Despite its sophisticated Socialist economy that grants as many benefits as any Scandinavian social-democracy, people aren’t having kids, while the Jews in Israel are having many. Yet, the Guardians council can’t just ban birth control by decree because…it’s not in the Koran.

This analogy makes no sense, as Israel is also structured more closely to the Traditionalist model than the Fascist model. While Iranian Shia Islam is more Traditionalist than Sunni’s Fundamentalism, Islam itself has never managed to successfully scale up to be robust and adaptive for intelligent first world populations the way that both Judaism and Christianity have managed to.

My view of Fascism combines heritage with reason. [*fedora tip*]

When the supposedly unreasonable memeplex consistently outperforms the “reasonable” memeplex across a wide variety of metrics across a wide variety of field conditions, then it’s necessary to reconsider which memeplex is the more reasonable one. The tried and proven examples of sustainable cultures of vitality and virility of intelligent and educated humans in peacetime (Judaism, Mormonism, Amish, etc…) aren’t the least bit “reasonable” by your metric.


My father was in my view a perfect father and he was an atheist. He came from a noble family, his grandfather instilled in him a love for his family name and his ancestors. He lived a very selfless life and did everything he could for his family. He did all he did to honor his ancestors who had set him an example on the type of man to be for thousands of years. I think a love for your father and grandfather who you actually got to know and love throughout your life is more inspiring than the love for a God who probably isn’t real and that tells you that we are all one in his eyes. Blood is thicker than holy water.


Wonderfully written. I´m moved by your story. Makes me think of a quote of the Roman emperor Markus Aurelius:
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but…will Have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”


Religious people don’t by default have better values than agnostic, Christians in name, or even many atheists. Christian churches end up granting divorces to 50% of all marriages, while college educated people who tend to be far less religion have a lower divorce rate.

Average and above average intelligence white people don’t need Jesus to behave morally, we do that for its own sake. What is more selfish than the just or moral man who does so out of fear instead of duty?

And don’t make me laugh at the notion that churches are somehow not directed by the material and social daseins . Churches might think of themselves as perpetual and having God bestowed powers against time, but Pope Francis is still giving a cultural Marxist speech that doesn’t mention God or jesus to Congress.

Scripture has always been interpreted by men to suit temporal needs, and always will be. Religion comes from a people’s souls, not from the sky. If you believe the churches or clerics have magic powers outside of being an extension of the genius of the race (rather than the race being the extension of the church) then this isn’t a serious conversation.

Matt Parrott

I’m not going to get lost in the weeds with an argument over whether religiosity is adaptive or whether our current clergy are deviant.

You’ve invalidated your original point. Fascism and Traditionalism are not synonymous. You can consider Traditionalism silly, stupid, or whatever. But there’s a meaningful (albeit subtle) difference which is meaningful and consequential.


Traditionalism is racial, as most Fascist believe, because traditions come from blood, institutions are manifestations of this. That transcendental point depends entirely on the people it is supposedly directing, what it itself is is largely irrelevant. Whether it’s Christianity, buddhism, Islam, or anything else, the final form Western traditions take on will largely arrive at a similar outcome.


Original Star Wars and George Lucas were deeply traditionalist in that they predicted the materialistic technological-military dispensation of the west rising against the traditionalist forces of the Jedi and the “bearded people from the desert”. It’s entire message is summed up in the following dialogue.

Darth Vader: Don’t be too proud of this technological terror
you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant
next to the power of the Force.
Admiral Motti: Don’t try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways,
Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped
you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough
to find the rebels’ hidden fortress…
[Vader makes a pinching motion and Motti starts choking]
Darth Vader: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

No wonder the Jew neocons viewed Star Wars as an attack to the “modernity” they more or less created and are the beneficiaries of:

George Lucas Destroyed Modernity

America in the age of primitivism

While liberals and Marxists claimed the heritage of the
eighteenth-century Enlightenment that produced the American and French
revolutions, Mussolini and Hitler denounced Enlightenment ideals, but
did not reject science.


If there was a moment when the culture of enlightened modernity in the
United States gave way to the sickly culture of romantic primitivism, it
was when the movie “Star Wars” premiered in 1977. A child of the 1960s,
I had grown up with the optimistic vision symbolized by “Star Trek,”
according to which planets, as they developed technologically and
politically, graduated to membership in the United Federation of
Planets, a sort of galactic League of Nations or UN. When I first
watched “Star Wars,” I was deeply shocked. The representatives of the
advanced, scientific, galaxy-spanning organization were now the bad
guys, and the heroes were positively medieval — hereditary princes and
princesses, wizards and ape-men. Aristocracy and tribalism were superior
to bureaucracy. Technology was bad. Magic was good.


Let everyone who opposes abortion, wants to ban GM foods and nuclear
energy, hates cars and trucks and planes and loves trains and trolleys,
seeks to ban suburbia, despises consumerism, and/or thinks Darwin was a
fraud join the Regressive Party. Those of us who believe that the real,
if exaggerated, dangers of technology, big government, big business and
big labor are outweighed by their benefits can join the Modernist Party.
While the Regressives secede from reality and try to build their
premodern utopias on their reservations, the Modernists can resume the
work of building a secular, technological, prosperous, and relatively
egalitarian civilization, after a half-century detour into a Dark Age.

How Jew neocons make the case for the empire to justify their similar actions and pursuits in imposing their own world order:

The Case for the Empire: Everything you think you know about Star Wars is wrong.


This is why the tendencies within the NR that most interest me can often be found in the worthwhile portions of Faye’s work (which excludes the philo-semitism of course). Faye recognizes that not everything about the modern world is bad.

As for Putin, he just dedicated the largest Mosque to ever exist in Russia. It’s long past time to give up the ghost on that man as anything other than a Russian Obama-Merkel.


Comparing Putin to Obama and Merkel is mind-blowing, it’s irresponsible and simplistic. He’s not Hitler II, but he is a strong force against globalism and a Russian patriot. Russia has always, for its entire history, been a multi-confessional country with a double-digit Muslim population, Putin building a Mosque is contextually very different than Merkel doing it in Germany.

The Russian Muslims are mostly white (though there is also a central Asian immigrant population in Russia, but it isn’t large at all if you consider most are returning Russians), and Putin doesn’t have National Review or sodomite hang ups about Islam like certain people in the “Alt-Right” do.

When it comes to Putin or Islam, stay away from the Jewy and faggy garbage counter-currents publishes on them.


I suppose time will tell with Putin.

As for counter currents, as a matter of fact, I’ve basically just resolved to quit reading that publication. I left a comment a few minutes ago, and for the first time in 5 years it was not printed. I can’t spend time reading somewhere where I’m not sure my comments will be printed if I leave them. It was a comment deriding the writer Patrick LeBrun as a kind of kosher-style, civic and propositional nationalist and mainstreamer which he definitely is. He is over at CC hailing some threadbare kosher-style document produced by a group that fits the profile of controlled oppo as revolutionary. Please.

Any purportedly rightist perspective that puts more emphasis on Islam than Jews when doing dystopia critique is definitely problematic. I agree with you on that. .


I see what you’re talking about. Pat Le Brun isn’t dumb, he’s just shallow as queers tend to be (I’m guessing he is). Superficial people look at something like Generation Identity and think “A-Ha, that’s what we need”, but pay 0 attention to the fact that GI has no ideological substance outside of typical Geert Wilders style controlled opposition. If Ben Carson was white (or actually, not even) he would make a good Generation Identity leader.

GI features good looking, normal young people in its propaganda videos and such, and their material has very high production values because they’ve got lots of kosher and conservative money to play with. But outside of bashing Islam, what do they really do? Most people endorsing them never really answer that question.

Ezra Pound

I’ve experienced the same thing C-C Lew. The publisher does not tolerate dissent very well, especially if it is well-reasoned and nuanced.


It wasn’t one of my best comments from the standpoint of tone as I consciously went for the kind of derision I feel kosher viewpoints deserve. But from a substance standpoint, my complaints about LeBrun were founded. The problem with him is not just that one article absurdly hailing what seems to be a kosher-influenced document as revolutionary. LeBrun has been relentlessly promoting what I consider to be a form of civic and proposition-oriented mainstreaming, just with a European twist, for years at cc and radix. The last straw for me was six months or a year ago when I heard LeBrun weigh in on Marine LePen and Golden Dawn. He didn’t seem particularly bothered by LePen’s hostile stance on Golden Dawn. But them again, LePen is kosher too, so I suppose it makes sense.

Matt Parrott

The pink swastika isn’t jewy. It picked the Jewish side of the Ukraine conflict because it’s allergic to Putin’s traditionalist agenda for the obvious reasons. Within their historiography, Jews are the progenitors of homophobia, with Christian opposition to the gay agenda being itself a reflective and derivative tentacle of the timeless Jewish assault on the homoerotic Aryan mannerbund.

They often end up on the same side as the Jews because the Jews are pushing degeneracy, but it’s always by accident, never due to Jewish influence, infiltration, or affinity. The pink swastika’s impact on the movement is a mixed bag–with plenty of substantial contributions to counter-balance the obvious downsides–but it’s reliably anti-semitic…at least in intention, if not always in effect.

PLB (and everyone else) is welcome to run whatever overly clever angles he wishes to run. I’m all for an experimental approach where we allow and encourage people to try out different angles. But the angles ought to be outward-facing, not inward-facing toward a journal like c-c which is relied upon as a lodestar of ideological clarity and purity.

john smith

“The pink swastika isn’t jewy. It picked the Jewish side of the Ukraine
conflict because it’s allergic to Putin’s traditionalist agenda for the
obvious reasons. Within their historiography, Jews are the progenitors
of homophobia, with Christian opposition to the gay agenda being itself a
reflective and derivative tentacle of the timeless Jewish assault on

are you fucking serious?

read romans to see what the christian view of faggotry is.

if this kind of rhetoric (in the paragraph above) is simply to justify greco-roman faggotry then it is misguided.

christianity has always put forward the ideal of strong male connections as chaste and not ‘homoerotic’, think of the franciscans and dominicans and all those military orders.

heck think of the apostles, would you say their spiritual brotherhood was ‘homoerotic’

Do I think that we should be lynching gays? no I don’t.
do I think we should not allow gays in our movement? no I don’t
I, and (Erik also perhaps) know that even in the ancient world gayness was connected with pederasty and decadence and we should never forget this fact.

what makes the pink swastika jewy is that is an ostensible attempt to graft faggotry onto a preexisting nazi ideological tradition. Just like non-redpilled gays do with christianity in general.

john smith

since homophobia is jewy does that mean your pro-faggot ‘marriage’ parrot?

john smith

sorry for so many comments, but now that I think about it underground homosexual practice should be tolerated so long as it does not involve pederasty or other savage things.

Ezra Pound

“he just dedicated the largest Mosque to ever exist in Russia” – You guys are so superficial. Given that there are going to be millions upon millions of Muslims living in the Russian Federation for the foreseeable future – as there have been for hundreds of years – is it more wise for the Russian state to keep an eye on the Muslims and control them to some degree, or is it more wise to ignore, marginalize and give them reason to take up the cudgel of Islamism or nationalism? You guys are too superficial to participate in debates about geopolitics and super-state administration.


Yes, I know, Putin has done a fine job making sure all those migrants he allows into orthodox lands from central Asia have a place to bow to mecca I’m dignity . Perhaps you don’t realize the mosque was paid for by Turks and other private Muslim interests, and it was built over the opposition of the Orthodox Church. Moscow now has the dubious honor of having Europe’s largest mosque and largest Muslim population at the same time.

It’s intersting that Putin hasn’t said anything about the mostly Muslim refugee invasion of Europe other than to blame the crisis on America. As far as I know, Putin hasn’t said Europe belongs to Europeans. Being beholden to Turks, Palestinians and Muslim sensibilities in general is probably one reason for that.

Richard Bird

Matt, I got as far as the end of the first paragraph and had to stop reading. Your pseudo intellectual use of the English language is very off putting. “Mercantile Age”? LOL.. WTF? That expression went out of fashion in the 18th century, and anyway, according to the wikipedia definition of the word, you are totally incorrect when you define western society as belonging to the, “mercantile age”. When you stop trying to impress your readers with your intellectual clap trap, I will start reading your stuff again. Until then, I really can’t be bothered.

Matt Parrott

I’ve developed what I mean by “Mercantile Age” in earlier posts over the years. I’m not just arbitrarily spinning neologisms.

Sorry you feel that way. Your readership will be dearly missed.

Richard Bird

Why do you have to reinvent the English language? A more accepted expression is, sorely missed, and while I expect technically, dearly missed, is kinda acceptable, it’s not really kosher (thought I’d use that word as I’m sure you can relate to it)

Matt Parrott

Because “Mercantile Age” is the most clear and parsimonious name for it.

Our civilization (and by colonial proxy, the rest of the world) is in the age of the merchant, where financial (mercantile) power overshadows traditional martial and managerial (ecclesiastical) means of power projection. The model dovetails with the Hindu varna and Dumezil’s trifunctional hypothesis into a concise, descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive historiographical model.

Ezra Pound

Richard, I think you must be used to reading dumbed-down garbage. The Alt Right prides itself on attracting moderate- to high IQ readers and this article is right in that range. The concept of “Mercantilism” is alive and well and we are most certainly living a Mercantile Age – that much is obvious to anyone who understands the relationship that obtains today between states and multinationals.

Richard Bird

Here’s a thought Ezra the false Pound.(why not use your own name).
When we die, we don’t know we are dead. It’s difficult only for the others.
It’s the same when you are stupid.
Think about it Ezra.

Ezra Pound

“When we die, we don’t know we are dead.” That’s a really swell religious belief you have there, too bad it can never be confirmed or denied by empirical science.


Very well put. It’s a pleasure reading what you write, as you so elequintly explain what so many of us have experience with. It can not be understated how much the Internet has changed the political landscape. Many people, myself included, would never have been given the opportunity to escape leftist ideals if it were not for the freedom of speach that this platform affords us.


This is a great article by one of the alt-right’s best writers, but I have to point out, for the good of all, that one does not “reign” anything in: one “reins in” something that has gotten out of control, the expression evoking the experience of driving horses.


Seems to me like the “Techno-Trad” mystique can turn into aesthetic arbitrariness – sort of like modern sports teams. There’s not a single North Carolinian playing for the Carolina Hurricanes (most aren’t even from America!). Drive down any metropolitan back street and you’re liable to see an Asian and Mexican “fusion” restaurant, run by a white hippy in her 60’s. Black kids are skateboarders while white kids, even the preppy ones, are routine rappers. Born a girl but want to be a man (or vice versa)? No problem. Want to be a dog? Congrats!

The internet is atomizing us and offering an environment where we can swap our identities along with our outfits.

(I’m thinking of making a youtube experiment to these ends. I’ll go clubbing one night and periodically change my garb / accent, then re-enter the same establishment to see what sort of reactions I get).


Fascism worked it took two major world powers to crush it, the word should be embraced but ideologically tweaked to fit an ideal of a distinctly American form of it

Leave a Reply