Basis of a Eurasianist Movement

Up to this point, I have not gotten too much into Eurasianism as a movement. As I mentioned in my introductory article What is Eurasianism?, Eurasianism refers not to a specific ideology, but rather to the "state" of being Eurasian. In other words, the "Eurasian condition". Thus far, that has been the focus of this blog: describing Eurasian history, culture and religion as it was over the years and even today. And that will remain a major piece of this blog going forward, as it should. But we must also begin to ask ourselves questions such as how this knowledge can be translated into something useful to a Eurasianist movement.

You may be asking yourself, "but if Eurasianism is not a specific ideology, how can it be a movement?", "If Eurasianism is merely a set of knowledge, how can it provide solutions to the present issues?" The answer is simple. The knowledge of Eurasianism offers us guidance and grounding in our lives at the personal, social, spiritual and even political levels. While my definition of Eurasianism definitely seems nebulous, at the heart of it actually lies a single all-encompassing worldview.

That common strand of pure Eurasian thought, which has its origins on the prehistoric Steppe, served as the cornerstone of all the great civilizations of the East and West. It is the spirit that drove the Romans to their conquests, that inspired the eternal Tang poets, and that eventually accompanied the European explorers across oceans. It is the subtle combination of humility before God and the maximization of human potential. It is imaginative, manifesting in the rich counterpoint of Bach and the dreamlike discursions of Zhuangzi. But, it is also accepting of the harshest realities, as we are reminded by countless ancient authors. Perhaps most of all it is the liberty of the soul, best characterized by a broad, open Steppe, where nowhere and nothing is beyond possibility. Those possessed by it built empires, crossed oceans and climbed mountains. Their spirit and legacy, perhaps, we ought to call the Eurasian Tradition.

Although it has been extinguished in our time period, we have the choice to revive and expand it. This neo-tradition may grow into an alternative to the conventional modernist worldview, the evils of which I won't bother to mention. We have the ability to develop this into a powerful weapon against modernity, and, perhaps most importantly, to leave to our posterity something immensely meaningful. To make a long story short, we have the ability to continue the Eurasian story.

As for those of us who are Biracial Eurasians, I would also say that Eurasianism is our birthright. Almost every Eurasian alive has gone through some kind of identity crisis. Whether it was brought about by events while young in school, or out of pure curiosity, that lack of a solid identity is the source of untold isolation for thousands of Hapas. That congenital inability to fit in with either race in today's world leaves endless Hapas wandering through life with no direction. Eurasianism and the uniquely Eurasian identity that it offers can fill the void. Around the banner of Eurasianism we can erect a global and eternal brotherhood of Eurasians. We can and we should foster our own, independent Eurasian community. Through Eurasianism, we will be able to embrace the rich heritage of our parents, while at the same time forging a new heritage which is just as unique and unprecedented as the Biracial Eurasian existence. The biracialism of the Hapas, which so many Hapas and people of other races take to be a weakness, we can transmute into a strength.

Nor should this movement be exclusive to Biracial Hapas. The Eurasian community should be a community of blood. After all, what unites all Hapas across the world is our shared state of being of mixed blood. The family is the most basic unit of any community, whether that community is a tiny village or a massive nation. And, the main type of familial bond is the nature-forged bond of blood. The monoracial members of the White and Asian races who gave birth to the Hapas may also find a place in this community, so long as they share our ideals and our values. I would even venture to invite into this family any White or Asian who is dedicated as we are to these principles and willing to mingle and consolidate their blood with ours. In the end, the main goal is the emergence of a Eurasian neo-tribe centered around the Eurasianist neo-Tradition, which is in turn rooted deeply in the historical Eurasian Tradition.

That Tradition should act as the centerpiece of our community, and by extension, of our movement. But what sort of role is that?

Of course, we should not seek to blindly conserve the ways defined by the Eurasian Tradition. This was the mistake of the so-called "conservatives", whose approach was to blindly stick to the ways of their forefathers without understanding their virtue. The result was a fatal weakness. While the liberals were with great energy marching towards their new world, intending to demolish the old ways, these "conservatives" grew stale and lethargic; nothing they sought to conserve ended up surviving, but they only continued to cede ground, and the objects they were conserving only became more meaningless. Their thought was not deep enough, nor did it have the fervor and fanaticism that the liberals had. They had no mantras, no battle-cries, no true convictions, while the liberals preached "equality, tolerance, love, etc." to the great cheers of the masses. Because the ancient ways did not genuinely resonate with them, the "conservatives" were ineffectual at defending truth and righteousness. Theirs was a journey given up half-way.

To be fair, we might argue that they had no idea what they were up against. But for us to make the same mistake and cling to some shallow image of the past would be pure folly. The past must become our guidance for the future. It should not become an object of mere passive and distant adoration, nor one of vague "conservation", it must become an illuminating model. We should seek, not to worship ruins, but to rebuild them; not to defend against the modern world, but to attack it. Eurasianism, then, can serve as the model, the spirit, and the life of our counterrevolution.

Taking all of this as a foundation, what the operations and goals of this new movement should be can be narrowed down and made clear. Basically, we must act to improve the condition and preserve the life and liberty of the present-day Biracial Eurasian people. This is done through the vehicle of Eurasianism, which offers Hapas not one benefit but two: first, a solution to the Hapa identity crisis; second, a refuge from the gaping nihilism and various other defects of Modernity. At the same time, and with equal energy, we must act to reinvigorate and champion the ancient Eurasian values and spirit that brought greatness, prosperity and happiness to so many of our ancestors. This is the two-pronged approach of Eurasianism. And as we cultivate this tree, it will continue to supply countless benefits into the future, not only to us and our descendants, but to the world at large.

To close, Eurasianism is more than a mere study of Eurasian history, culture and religion. It is also the practical and intellectual application of those principles. It can serve, on one hand, to solve the issues of the Hapas and, on the other hand, to tackle the ever-looming crisis of Modernity, which has turned this world into an absurd circus. This we can and should take as the starting point of a greater Eurasianist movement.

Humanism, the Enlightenment and the Problem of "Man"

The Modern World is best described as the World of Man.

Even the scientific community has opted to label our present era the "Anthropocene". Since the Industrial Revolution, nearly every drop of human agency--every skill, every art, every discipline of knowledge, every technology--has been conscripted in service to the needs and wants of Man. Today, everything around us is designed and built specifically for the convenience and consumption of Man. Billions of tons of logs, concrete and other materials are mobilized to furnish Man with shelter. Billions of tons of crops and meat are harvested to furnish Man with nourishment. Billions of dollars are spent creating TV shows, sports matches, games and music to furnish Man with entertainment and leisure. Further, billions of Man-hours go into the creation and maintenance of machines and systems whose sole purpose is to increase the ease and decrease the cost of furnishing Man with shelter, nourishment, entertainment and leisure. All that may seem fine, but it exposes and interesting fact: to Modern Man, nothing is more important than Man. Therefore, nothing is to be hated more than something that is Anti-Man. Anything that even slightly impedes Man's access to the objects he desires to consume is to be eliminated. Anyone who believes that there is more to this world than Man is a misanthropic scoundrel.

To make a long story short, in our Modern era, humanity has become obsessed with humanity. Like Narcissus, Man cannot stop staring at himself in the mirror. Nor can Man stop singing his own praises. He believes he is capable of everything, having convinced himself that his techniques have an infinite capacity for improvement. By that logic, Man has 'rationally' arrived at the conclusion that all things that exist in this Universe belong to his domain. He has convinced himself that he is entitled to the dominion of all things living and nonliving, and that includes his fellow men. Hence it follows, according to Man's logic, that the whole World ought to be brought under his singular rule, that every nation and territory should be united, every race and ethnicity conjoined and conmingled into a universal "Brotherhood of Man". When that happens, says Man, instantly all conflict would cease, and everybody would live in perpetual harmony, for all issues that arise could be mediated using Man's flawless reason and intellect. If only those "misanthropists" would give up their countries, cultures, religions and individuality, says Man, then we could all live in a global utopia. If this sounds a bit like liberalism, you would be right. After all, the liberals claim to be the ideology "of the people".

But isn't there a problem with this? Ask Man and, as you might expect, he will tell you no. You might as well ask God if there is a problem with his dominion over all Creation. However, ask men, and most of them will tell you that the last thing they want is to be assimilated into a so-called "Brotherhood of Man" with myriads of people across the world whom they've never met and have nothing in common with. This is due to a problem that Man, blinded by his own arrogance, is unaware of. That is, there is no such thing as Man.

At the end of the day, Man is merely an abstraction. An abstraction consists of only what all of its instances have in common. In the case of men, who are as numerous and diverse in their natures, appearances, ways and spirits as are the places where they dwell, that leaves very little--besides four limbs and red blood--belonging to "Man". A Manchurian is not the same thing as a Frenchman, and both differ even more drastically from a Kenyan; how, then, are we at liberty to apply the term "Man" to all three of them? Of course, they are all are men, but the naturally-occurring diversity which God imparted to this world has resulted in the divergence of both their biological and spiritual features. In such a context, indeed, "Man" is a word that has little meaning. If we are left to rely on what few things all men have in common for the very foundation of our identity, then we would be left quite impoverished in that regard. It would be difficult to say that we even be left with any identity at all. “Now, there is no such thing as ‘man’ in this world," says de Maistre, "In my life I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, and so on. I even know, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be Persian. But as for man, I declare I’ve never encountered him.”¹ Indeed, that image Man is constantly staring at in the mirror, one would be hard pressed to find a single man on this Earth who resembles it. French, Italian, Russian, those are all nations, which are men in addition to their history, language, culture and religion. Man, however, is just an animal.

Unfortunately, we live in a time period where this simple fact, which was accepted for thousands of years, has been forgotten. In the past five centuries or so, we have seen emerge the doctrine of Humanism. As the name might imply, Humanism asserts that Man is the end-all be-all of everything, and that Man is the measuring stick of the Universe, the lens through which we ought to view every issue, the very raison d'être of our society. On a basic level, all that might seem innocent enough, but thinking about it with any level of depth should reveal that it is a nasty, slow-acting poison in disguise. That is because of the simple law that whenever and wherever the primacy of Man is increased, there the primacy of God decreases. When we substitute the transcendental with the the physical and fleshy, what naturally results is atheism and the loss of objective meaning. The notion of Humanity as an "end-all be-all", despite the warm and fuzzy feeling that it evokes, could not be more pointless. That is because Man is temporary and imperfect; like all physical things, he decays and erodes with age. Further, nothing that Man builds ever lasts, another fact which has been forgotten by the Humanists. The greatest nations and empires all meet their end eventually, because they too are bound by the laws of physical decay; like the seasons, their rise and fall is scheduled, their lifespans are fixed. By recognizing these laws, the ancients realized that the temporary flesh is secondary to the immortal soul, that an unchanging Heaven has dominion over a malleable Earth. Thus emerged the great civilizations of Eurasia which belonged to the Traditional type. But when these civilizations, too, passed away from the world, those truths were forgotten and people began to entertain the idea that Man was primary. We have seen the decay and degeneration that have taken place over the past five centuries, especially just this past century. We have seen atheism and secularism emerge to the detriment of all that is pure and virtuous. Is this not the logical conclusion of Humanism?

Of course, I won't try to lie to you and say that the Renaissance Humanists or their intellectual successors, the Enlightenment thinkers, were atheists. But as I said, the poison of Humanism is a slow-acting one. In the beginning, it was not a debate between God and atheism, but a debate between public religion (like Catholicism) and more private religion (like Protestantism). Most of the Enlightenment thinkers, including the American Founders, simply wanted a government that doesn't tell Christians specifically how they should worship God. Fast forward to the 21st century, however, and what we ended up with was not private religion, but state-sponsored atheism and the removal of even the idea of God from all spheres. Now this is all in the name of "the separation of Church and State", but can we honestly believe that when the Enlightenment thinkers wrote such words they intended some day for public society to altogether renounce God and effectively declare war against Heaven? And this is by no means an exaggeration. In nations of European heritage, including the US, the social fabric once held together by Christian principles, to which Europeans have subscribed for the past two millennia, has been completely disintegrated. Pornography, lewdness and sodomy are legal. Greed and usury are legal, and are the staple of all economic life. Even murder is legal in the form of abortion. The nations founded on the principles of decency, liberty and temperance are now filled with millions of people who are slaves to the flesh: sodomites marching through the streets, alcoholics and opiate abusers on every corner, families torn apart by infidelity and divorce, and a public stage where the sportsball player, the prostitute, the actress, the comedian and the merchant are held in the highest regard. These are the exact types of things the ancients warned us about. Is this what the Enlightenment thinkers had in mind when they wrote about "life, liberty and property" and "the separation of Church and State"?

It goes without saying that they didn't, but that means absolutely nil! Because one generation's interest in personal liberties and the "rights of Man" became the next generation's focus, and the subsequent generation's obsession. Imagine how much you would have been laughed at if you told Rousseau that if his philosophy won the day, in two hundred years we would have "welfare checks" and "transgender rights". You would have been made into a prime example of the slippery slope fallacy. And yet the slippery slope turned out to be true. How quickly the zeitgeist jumped from "Man should have the right to free speech" to "Man should have the right to dye his hair green and put on a dress"! Where did all this insanity arise? It arose from the simple reality that Humanism, without even knowing it, unleashed the animal that lies just beneath the surface of "Man". Nevermind what Man should be, their only concern was what Man was. And the reality is that Man is a two-legged beast with a Godlike soul. When that soul was no longer of any importance, all that was left was the beast. Thus the "rights of Man" conversation quickly devolved from a discussion of property and taxation to one of sex and desire. Individual liberty became erroneously conflated with individual license. In the end, the vestiges of the ancient Tradition were abolished one by one, in every case because they interfered with the human animal's insatiable hunger for license and so-called "liberty". Indeed, when you are the most important thing in the Universe, how can anything be allowed to stand in between you and what you desire? Hence the emergence of Modernity. Man's newfound obsession with himself is what has eventually lead to the moral and spiritual bankruptcy which is on full display everywhere we look around us today.

As we see today, that "liberty" Man has endowed himself with is altogether false. It is not true liberty, which is the freedom of the soul, but it is merely license, the freedom of the body. Today, thanks to Humanism, people can practice more vices without societal consequences than any other time in history. This has caused their appetite for vice to grow and grow, until they become dependent on vice. At that point, these "free" people are no more than slaves. As St. Augstine put it (and I have yet to encounter any author who has put it better), "Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices."² When Man has no God but himself, ruin, evil and slavery are all that can result. Therefore I make the argument to all those who wish not to be slaves, that we must renounce Humanism and the Enlightenment, and embrace the premodern Tradition of Eurasia, which had been transmitted from prehistory and through high antiquity, where it matured into the various high cultures of the great civilizations of the East and West.

In order to do that, we must first accept the reality that Humanism as a concept is fully at odds with this Tradition. As virtually every culture across Europe and Asia prior to the Modern era agreed, Heaven is primary, not Man. And Nature, which consists of the decrees dispatched by Heaven, is an expression of Heaven's will. Historically, Eurasian societies and spiritual beliefs were Nature-oriented. In other words, they held Nature to be sacred due to its being the physical manifestation of God's will. They understood that the natural phenomena and awe-inspiring natural manifestations were worthy of fear and respect because of their ability to both create and destroy. Thus, the original axiom of the Traditional worldview was that Heaven's laws, when accorded with, bring one prosperity, when opposed, bring one destruction. Recognizing the supremacy of Heaven means accepting and following Heaven's decrees: the ironclad laws of Nature.

Humanism, on the other hand, holds that Man is somehow above the laws of Nature, that man is more powerful even than God, and that Nature exists merely to serve Man. This is an arrogant and foolish worldview, and it is not Eurasian. At some point during many centuries of gradual decay, it was introduced by external influences, and slowly but surely it proceeded to unleash its poison. If this pure theory is not sufficient to persuade the reader, then all I can say is to take a look outside. Right now we are living in a world which is the fruit of the Enlightenment delusion and ultimately of Humanism.

Footnotes:

1. Joseph de Maistre, Considerations on France.
2. St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God.

Democracy and Radicalism: Reflections on the State of U.S. Politics

The historians of the future will mark January 6th, 2021 as the day when the United States entered a new era. As for the historiography of this country thus far, I propose the following. The inception of America in 1776 marks the beginning of the first era; we might call it a Golden Age. This lasted until 1913, when the Federal Reserve was established. In this second age, the character of the nation was forced to undergo a systematic, all-encompassing change. It was not a sudden change, but a gradual one; to a certain extent we are today still experiencing tail end of that transformation. Now with the fall of Trump and storming of the Capitol, it seems this second era has come to a surprising end. But what exactly is so significant about the 6th?

The event itself was hardly impactful. In frank terms, it involved a large protest (nothing unusual), a portion of which broke into the Capitol building and rummaged through the halls and offices for a while. It was dispersed by federal forces within a few hours. The sun had hardly set, and the business scheduled to go on in that building was already resumed. Most of all, the action received immediate denouncement and disapproval from across the board; it inspired nobody and only minimally interrupted the political process. In terms of real effects, the storming of the Capitol achieved nothing. No political changes will emerge as a result of a bunch of Trump supporters taking pictures in the Senate or writing notes in Nancy Pelosi's office. In fact, I think calling it 'the storming of the Capitol'--which seems to have caught on recently--is a bit overblown. It certainly doesn't approach the magnitude of a 'coup' or 'insurrection' as those on the Left, nostalgic for their university drama lectures, have been calling it. Like the objection to the election certification the House and Senate Republicans were carrying out just hours before, this 'revolution' had a foregone conclusion. Those who dream day and night of truly flipping the table and upending the establishment could have hardly been anxious. Why, then, do I say, in spite of its insignificance, it is an event of unprecedented significance?

This is the first time in recent history Americans have organically resolved to go against the rules. Now all the establishment figures from the Left, 'Right' and everywhere in between are labeling it an act of radicalism and a shameful affront to democracy. For decades they have convinced the masses of the so-called maxims that any issue, no matter how big, can be resolved through ballots and debate, and that any solution cooked up outside the sterile conference rooms of mid-century brutalist city halls is contrary to the 'American Way'. One of my greatest complaints against modern people is their blatant historical short-sightedness. Have they already forgotten their own forefathers who chose to settle their differences with the British Crown with swords and muskets? Have they already forgotten their foundational heroes who resolved to fight to the death for the ability to manage their own affairs rather than have British lawmakers manage their affairs for them? Today, the people are taught that what the Founders did was righteous, and had to be done, but simultaneously they are warned that should they repeat it, and imitate the Founders, then they will have committed a grave and unforgivable act. Until the 6th, there was no evidence that there existed a sizeable portion of the population who believed otherwise. The common people, regardless of country or time period, generally think according to what is popular at the time--this is one of a handful of historical constants. Thus it is no common occurrence that today so many people should think contrary to what is mainstream, to go against what they have been told and act in a way similar to the Founders. How did we get here?

For decades, people have perceived problems compounding upon problems in the American government. The institution that started out with three humble departments has grown into a behemoth with billion-dollar budgets and more programs, projects, proceedings and regulations than can be sanely kept track of. They watched as their government 'of the American people' filled up not with Americans, but with politicians. Their interests and grievances had to take a back seat to those of the large international corporations and special interest groups. Year after year, the people were forced to give up more, to accommodate more and to tolerate more. Before their eyes, America was robbed from them and transformed into ground-zero of globalism and liberalism, the purest rot of Modernity, a system where the wicked were uplifted and the righteous punished, where the greedy profited and the honest paid. Thus emerged what is widely called the 'Establishment'. On top of that, the Americans witnessed their national culture, religion and heritage, which had been transmitted from their European Founders, dissipate and slowly become replaced by a plastic, multicultural monoculture. America became a country for everyone and everything, and in doing so, it became a country for no one and nothing. Most people, being but cogs in the machine, never understood the full extend of the damage and the decay, but there hardly was anybody to whom nothing seemed amiss.

What was to be done with these issues? Well, the Americans believed wholeheartedly in the triumph of democracy. It was blindly assumed if enough of them turned up at the next election they could elect the leaders necessary to return the nation to its former prosperity and expel the subversive elements. But year after year, president after president, their issues seemed not to diminish, but to augment. Meanwhile, the progressives, modernists and socialists grew in strength and numbers; their ranks filled the numerous halls of state, and their agendas, each more destructive than the last, were met with less and less opposition. Those who were inclined to the traditional ways of America soon found that those they elected to office could do nothing, or were unwilling to do anything, to oppose the leftward shift, which was supported not only by the greater part of the government, but also by the virtual totality of the media, academia and corporations--the Elite. They realized that their right to control their own homeland was being obstructed and that they had become despised by their own country. Meanwhile the liberals who despised them were lauded as heroes. This is where Trump came in.

When Trump began campaigning in 2015, his platform appealed to the last surviving currents of the original American Way. Don't get me wrong; Trump even from the beginning was not the solution. There are issues which go much deeper than what Trump was willing to discuss, and indeed much deeper than anything that has been discussed with a modicum of seriousness within the last 200 years. Those who are privy to the ways of the Eurasian Tradition know this well. But Trump was indisputably a step in the right direction. His administration could have kicked off a new renaissance of Traditional thought, and could have provided an environment where a new, but no less authentic, Traditional movement could have been incubated. However, as we all know, this did not happen. Trump was elected, but the great renaissance those on the true Right were hoping for never took place. He proved to be much more moderate than most would expect. There were those who believed Trump was, to borrow a popular idiom, "hiding his power level", while cooking up some elaborate design to eliminate the liberal establishment behind the curtain. The optimistic held on to such notions vigorously, but after the events of the last month or so, culminating with January 6th, they must have been forced to accept the reality. There will be no Rubicon crossing yet.

Trump's ardent supporters, who were the prime agents of the rightward shift, stuck with him through the election of November 3rd. When time after time the attempts to have the numerous and voluminous instances of election fraud investigated were shot down, they resolved to fight for Trump until the very end. January 6th came, and they made good on their word, however fruitless, naive and frivolous their actions were. They occupied the Capitol building for three hours, and after that it was all over. The movement behind which they had thrown all their support, in which they had placed all their hopes, collapsed in the blink of an eye. The next day they turned on their TVs to listen to Donald Trump himself call them "[defilers of] the seat of American democracy" and concede to the illegitimate Biden. It is repeated constantly by the Left, that Trump's political platform and rhetoric incline the minds of Americans to the R word: radicalism. However, theirs is a view of great imperceptivity. It is not the organic movement of Trump and everything he claimed to stand for itself, but rather the downfall of that movement, after sustaining relentless attacks day and night from all corners of society and finally a coup de grace from its very leader, that will generate far more radicals. For the birth, life and death of the Trumpist movement has for the first time shown millions, who previously thought it was unthinkable, that tyranny cannot be voted out of power and that, at the end of the day, the actions of the enemy carry the benefit of being "legal", while their own actions bear the bane of being "radical". They will either return to complacency, or else go the way of Nietzsche's Overman, who declares independence from the mores of his period in history and writes his own. With an ironic smile, many of them will learn to embrace the term "radical".

But what even is a radical? People in the mainstream Left and "Right" love to throw the term around at their enemies. Like the other R word, "racist", it is a label often applied to those one wishes to shame. Thus it carries a grave and negative connotation, evoking fearsome images of dictators possessed by political insanity, murdering innocents and expounding genocide, war and destruction. But it seems most of the people who used the word negatively have no idea what it even means. The word "radical" is derived from the Latin radix, literally "root" as in the "root of a plant", whence also the English "radish". Extrapolated into its current political meaning, "radical" thus should be understood as a position of strict adherence to fundamental principles, the "roots" of a particular worldview. We should also understand "radical" as an approach to solving problems. We are immediately aware of numerous problems which plague civilization, but it takes more than a surface-level glance to realize that most of these so-called "problems" are actually just symptoms of deeper, more serious "root" issues. Hence a "radical" approach to solving problems is, rather than merely dealing with the symptoms (as modern, pacified man has become accustomed to doing), directly attacking the source of those symptoms: the true problems themselves. Why have the Elites told everybody that to be "radical" is bad, that one who holds strong convictions and is dedicated to his principles is to be despised? The answer becomes quite clear when we accept the fact that everything the Left calls "radical" consists of the only things that pose a threat to their power. House and Senate Republicans contesting the certification of the election results poses no threat to their power. That is legal. When angry people storm the castle, now that is something entirely different. That is radical.

A man with convictions, who truly believes in the righteousness of his cause, can be stopped by no one. On the other hand, a man who has opinions, yet has things in his life which he considers more important, is complacent. Given the choice between these two, which do you think an unrighteous shadow Elite would prefer to rule over? Thus the former category has been marked off with yellow tape. Those who go beyond it are ostracized, not because they are truly evil, but because they are the only ones who pose a threat to the system's power. When the Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, they crossed that yellow tape, and now, by guilt of association with that small subgroup, all Trump supporters, several tens of millions in total, will soon be facing the full force of that ostracization under the fully establishment-controlled government, media and corporations. They are all radicals now, whether they wanted to be or not. And how can we blame them? They have witnessed democracy fail them at every stage. When they saw the country under attack by subversive elements, they rallied behind a candidate who promised to turn things around. When they elected him, they saw how the entire establishment mobilized to oppose him, by media slander, corporate censorship, a bogus impeachment and much more. Finally, when it came time for reelection (because no real change can take place in four years), they saw take place what was the biggest fraud in history. They utilized the democratic process with such scrupulousness, but instead of rewarding them with the change they were told they would get for following the rules, the system spat in their face. How, then, could they not become radicals?

Trump? This goes far beyond him. I don't think Trump knew what he was getting himself into when he descended the escalator back in 2015. For, as we have seen, he has liberated an ancient force which has been sleeping for many years. He has played his role as the catalyst that sets the wheel of History turning once again. The movement he started and eventually betrayed will outgrow and outlive him; like a caterpillar it will transform. America is at the peak of its Kali Yuga; if it has not already started its descent, it will be shortly. I expect this movement to only become more radical in the coming years, because the 6th has shown us that the number of people who have stopped believing in a political solution to the Crisis of Modernity is only growing.