I’ve been reading a lot on Substack, maybe we should have a thread for linking and excerpting Substack articles.
I had already read the one you linked, it ends up on a hopeful note:
The first path, in which we do nothing, or do something and still lose, looks a lot like a possible Great Filter scenario: the total destruction not just of European man, but of all human civilization …
The other path is the one where we fight, and win. …
But for victory to be possible at all, it will require a revaluation of values in men’s hearts. Not only a withdrawal of loyalty to the states that abuse them, but a reconsideration of the very moral basis of those states. Men must look at what happened to Rhodesia, and feel not smug satisfaction that the racists got what was coming to them, but an ache of loss for something noble and beautiful that was senselessly ruined, followed by wrath at those who sacrificed it on the altar of their own sick perversions. Men must be willing to admit that, just as there are individual higher and lower people, there are higher and lower peoples, and they must be willing to say that this is a good thing; they must understand that it is man’s purpose to always favour the higher, in every sense of that term, in order that man may serve as God’s hands guiding the upward development of life.
I do not think that the forces of entropy will win. I think that there is a great, unrealized will permeating the Earth, that the dream of conquering the stars is too strong, that it demands to be expressed, that it demands a civilization in which it can be expressed, and everything that follows logically from that.
As I have written elsewhere the foundational premise of all possible ethics is: prefer the better to the worse. Therefore one must judge, and failure to do so is unethical under all possible systems of ethics; egalitarianism is thus always unethical.
A less prolix and exceptionally fine writer is Alexander Macris (Contemplations on the Tree of Woe)
From What is to Be Done?
Let’s re-imagine the 20th century left-wing revolutionary Vladimir Lenin as a 21st century American right-wing dissident.
[Chadimir Lenin]
[…]
The reason so many successful actors, musicians, and politicians are narcissists is that in order to become a highly successful actor, musician, or politician, you have to take long shots against long odds. Often the only people who take long shots against long odds are the people who are self-deluded enough to think they’re better than all the others who tried and failed.
People like Lenin.
Lenin was a self-deluded nobody. He was a loser. He had accomplished virtually nothing with his life except a stint in the gulag. He was nowhere near as influential as the well-established figures who currently are prominent among the dissident right. He wasn’t even… Nick Fuentes.
But Lenin he changed the world. Sure, he changed it for the worse — but he changed it. And so could we.[2]
It’s often said that politics is the art of the possible. But that’s not true. Conventional politics might be just the art of the possible, but dissident politics is the art of the impossible. It’s the art of orchestrating butterfly effects until they cause a hurricane.
Today, we have the butterflies, but they’re an improvisational jazz band, and not an orchestra. Maybe we need a… monarch butterfly…. to show us where to fly.
[2] The ambiguity is intentional. Enjoy.
