One of the foremost questions which the Right must answer today is whether or not the present situation can be salvaged in any meaningful way—whether or not Western civilization can be “saved” or whether we can reverse the current trajectory, which presently seems to lead towards collapse. The simple truth is that all Traditionalists, Right-wingers, Reactionaries, and other such people on “this side” know that the world is headed in the wrong direction. The question, then, is whether this must all end in catastrophe or whether we can “save the West.”
In my view, there are three main perspectives on this question. Each has its merits, and each demands a different course of action by the Right. Ultimately though, the divides which exist between the various answers presents a challenge to the Right where concrete action and coordination are concerned. For instance, as you will see, people’s conclusions as to how they ought to live and act in the world today vary greatly depending on their stance. Because of these differences, obstacles exist in the area of reconciliation and unity on the Right, therefore posing a risk to the Right’s ability to challenge the Left.
By understanding these differences, and by knowing where we stand, we can hopefully work towards greater cooperation and set common goals. Ultimately, we all share a fairly consistent worldview, even if we differ on these issues and others. It is better, then, for the Right to ensure that it does not sabotage itself over this controversy. With that, let us survey the three perspectives.
The first perspective is the “Reformist” perspective. It is characterized mainly by its optimism, hope, and support of continuing political action with the belief that such action can reverse the trajectory that our civilization finds itself on. We could say that this perspective affirms the idea of a “political solution.” Those in this group would assert that the Right ought to be very involved in politics and government, and that such activity has the potential to make genuine, long-lasting reforms. A phrase I often see online is that “we don’t have to live like this” with the implication being that we have the power to change the circumstances we find ourselves in for the better. This group would advocate for supporting the Republican Party in the United States and other conservative or Right-wing parties and organizations around the world. In their mind, even if these groups have problems of their own, they are certainly preferable to the Left, and are workable. Furthermore, this group would heavily advocate for direct political action and the implementation of policies aimed at fighting the Left, with the belief that such action and policies would legitimately set us on a path towards recovery.
Someone who I would point to as holding this position is @MysteryGrove on Twitter. He often posts that “we are going to win” and that Right wingers must focus on winning real elections, electing strong Republican candidates, and ultimately take control of institutions like the police and military. As an example, he has said in the past that Right-wingers should generally support their local police departments because they are the best way to fight crime and keep the peace. He also advocates for Right-wingers to read books pertaining to Civil Wars (such as Always with Honor and Mine Were of Trouble) to learn what to do when faced with dire political circumstances.
At the end of the day, this group is characterized by a genuine belief that we can fight back, that we do have the power to make things better through existing means, and that the trajectory we are currently on is not impossible to change. This is easily the most optimistic perspective and has been, in my view, especially reinvigorated by Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, Brexit, Viktor Orban, and very recently, the El Salvadorian President’s successful crackdown on gangs.
The second two perspectives are far more pessimistic about the future. While both often agree with the Reformists that we ought to pursue Right-wing policies, they do not perceive the situation to be salvageable in the end. Both assert that the West is and has been in decline, and that collapse is inevitable.
One of these two perspectives is what I will call here the “Traditionalist” perspective. When I say Traditionalist, I am specifically referring to the Traditionalism of two philosophers in particular: René Guénon and Julius Evola. Guénon believed that we are in the last phase of the Kali-Yuga cycle. What makes Guénon interesting is that he seems to harbor some hope for reform, though is not certain that catastrophe can be avoided. He says, in Crisis of the Modern World, “For our own part, we ask no more than to contribute, as far as our means permit, both to the reform and to the understanding [of the East], if indeed there is still time, and if any such result can be attained before the arrival of the final catastrophe toward which modern civilization is heading.” This passage is striking, as it highlights what I believe to be the hallmark of the Traditionalist perspective. First, that catastrophe is inevitable. Second, that those who ascribe to this perspective do believe, at least ideally, in the reform of Western civilization along Traditionalist lines, at least on a temporary basis. Despite this belief, they are uneasy about whether reform is possible or that we have enough time to enact reforms.
Both Evola and Guénon are in agreement that the world of Tradition, in the West, is long gone. Evola is quite pessimistic about any attempts to salvage what is left, as in his mind, there is next to nothing left at all. In Ride the Tiger he writes, “there is one solution to be eliminated right away: the solution of those who want to rely on what is left of the bourgeois world, defending and using it as a bastion against the more extreme currents of dissolution and subversion…” Furthermore, he believes, mirroring the next perspective, that, “The advice ‘Don’t go to the place of defense, but to the place of attack,’ might be adopted by the group of differentiated men, late children of the Tradition, who are in question here. That is to say, it might be better to contribute to the fall of that which is already wavering and belongs to yesterday’s world than to try to prop it up and prolong the existence artificially.” Primarily though, Evola advocates for “riding the tiger” and not directly opposing the “forces in motion.”
This perspective is the most difficult to define as it has similarities to the Reformist and to the Accelerationist perspective (which I will discuss next). You could probably argue that this position is not even one of its own, but for our purposes I wanted to include it. I like to think of the Traditionalist perspective as being confident in the coming collapse of Western civilization and the present historical period, and unconvinced that serious reform can take place, at least in the long run, while still affirming the importance of Traditional men working to preserve the Traditional mindset and to ensure the continuation of Tradition even after the collapse.
With that, we come to the third and last perspective which I just mentioned: the Accelerationist perspective. This is championed especially by the neoreactionary (NRx) thinkers Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug). It is also shared by Bronze Age Pervert (BAP) both in his book Bronze Age Mindset and in his podcast Caribbean Rhythms. The Accelerationist perspective is rather simple. Society cannot be saved, so we must destroy it. Like the Traditionalists, Accelerationists firmly believe that we are witnessing the decline of the West. They believe that the collapse of this civilization is inevitable, but, unlike the previous two perspectives, harbor no belief in the possibility of saving the West or reforming it in any meaningful way. Instead, they wish to hasten the collapse in the hopes of a favorable outcome once it has occurred. Accelerationists assert that “there is no political solution” to our current problems, and instead advocate a wide variety of actions ranging from terrorism to infiltration. A good article about this was posted in 2018 by an anon detailing Nick Land’s position.
Ironically this position is also held by some radical Leftists, though they want to accelerate the collapse of the Capitalist system to enact a Communist system.
BAP says at the end of Bronze Age Mindset that, “In the next hundred years and even before, barbaric piratical brotherhoods will wipe away this corrupt civilization…” His basic programme is that of young men forming mafias and actively attempting to ferment chaos in society to bring about another Bronze Age collapse type scenario. This is, as far as I understand, his very genuine and ultimate position. To say that this perspective is pessimistic is not quite enough. It is cynical, to a point of being destructive.
These positions may, at first glance, seem irreconcilable. After all, the Reformist position differs from the next two positions inasmuch as it believes we can win and that we can save the West and that reform is worth working for. The Traditionalist position is more sympathetic to the Reformists depending on who is talking, but at the end of the day does not believe collapse can be avoided. The Traditionalist position is also somewhat sympathetic to the Accelerationist position, as I detailed earlier, though it is far less interested in actively destroying society. Of the three, the Accelerationist position is easily the most radical and probably the least ascribed to, at least from what we can see in practice. It certainly shares the least in common with the Reformist position.
I do not believe that they are totally at odds though. BAP and the neoreactionaries all backed Trump along with the Reformists, and the Traditionalists can at least see value in ensuring favorable conditions for men to study Tradition and live traditionally.
There are also many policies that all three perspectives can agree on. For instance, no one wants a society where crime is rampant and uncontrollable, since it poses a risk to themselves personally, and others aligned with them. No one on our side wants a society where raising a family is nearly impossible, since it threatens the survival of traditionally minded men and women beyond into the future. No one wants a society where Left-wing tyrannies are established, either. No one wants the furtherance of the LGBT and anti-White agenda in our culture, and nobody wants mass immigration to totally overwhelm the West. With all these points of agreement, it seems clear that those who subscribe to the various perspectives can come together to support key policies and solutions, temporary as they may be. Right-wingers may disagree on whether civilization is definitely going to collapse, when, how, and why, but we all agree that it is much better to live in a Right or right-adjacent society compared to a Leftist one, even if that society is deficient or incomplete. All-in-all, it is most important, as I said in the beginning of this post, to overcome obstacles which impede unity, and which obstruct the Right from successfully challenging and defeating the Left.
Thank you for reading this post. If you enjoyed it, please consider subscribing so that you can receive our content directly in your inbox.