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.
No comments:
Post a Comment