When a society has become unlivable, the disaffected citizens are left with two options: either overturn the society, or break away from the society. Either situation involves the creation of a new society, in the first, out of the ruins of the old society, which must be torn down, often by violence, and in the second, out of the pioneering and development of settlements in new lands, where the degree of physical separation from the existing society allows for the formation of new ones.
Those who are today truly disaffected citizens are, to use the words of Devon Stack, "a subset of a subset of a subset." This lack of numbers and hence lack of power, especially institutional power, makes the first option of overturning the present society impossible. When the disaffected citizens have no control over the societal institutions that rule over them--not even via proxy in the form of elections, as is the case now--there is no chance for them to overturn the present condition of society or otherwise reverse the course of events. Even if elections were fair and honest, time and time again it is demonstrated that even with "your guy" in office, very little changes. The ruling class has the entire apparatus of government, media and industry under lock and key. To preserve their power, the society's institutions have "blacklisted" legitimate use of the system by said disaffected population for the purpose of reversing things. You can't use the system to take down the system.
Some suggest violent solutions, but these are not possible with significant numbers and financial backing, both of which are lacking. Since it is impossible, and because doing so will likely get one involved with federal law enforcement, there is no point in discussing forcefully overturning society--even fantasizing about it.
This being the case, the only option remaining is the second one: departure from the present society and the formation of a new society, with new institutions.
That is what we mean by pioneering; we are using the literal sense of that word. We do not mean "pioneering new ideologies" or "pioneering new solutions". We mean, literally, a migration of like-minded people to "frontier lands", where the influence of mainstream society is markedly less strong. These are almost by necessity rural, underdeveloped areas, where there is not a lot of preexisting wealth, and where making a living will be much more difficult than in urban, developed areas. It may involve more humble lines of work, such as agriculture, pastoralism and hunting. It may involve homesteading and self-sufficiency. It will require people to take responsibility for their own level of comfort and happiness, rather than relying on the existing infrastructure to provide it. This is the price that must be paid for a greater degree of freedom from the mainstream institutions and their disagreeable policies. But, with time, often several generations, the hard work of the pioneers pays off. From that work, the pioneers create their own wealth and their own, new institutions, and pass these on to their progeny. Eventually a new society emerges, with a new culture and new heritage, which may even be strong and wealthy enough to take on the previous society and win.
This is not without historical precedent, both in macro and micro forms. In the macro, there have been many peoples and tribes who migrated to new lands to found new societies. It is not only a natural, but also a common historical process. Just look at all the places across the Earth which are literally named, in their respective languages, "frontier", such as Ukraine and Xinjiang. One major instance of this was the migration of European people to the New World. This was often spurred on by real or perceived religious persecution experienced in their home countries, of for example many of the more puritan varieties of Protestantism, who in coming to America could set up and practice their religion without molestation from the mainstream religious and political institutions at the time. There were countless other reasons for the founding Anglo-Saxon stock of America to leave their societies in Europe to set up "parallel" societies in the Americas. The rural and unsettled state of America was also a lure, and a contrast to the more urbanized Europe. America was in effect a "blank slate" with infinite possibilities. This came to a climax with the creation of the United States, where true independence was declared from the old order, allowing for a new trajectory of development for the Indo-European race, especially its Anglo-Saxon-derived division.
A similar process likely contributed to the formation of Rome. This is reflected first of all in mythology. The founding mythos of Rome, relayed famously in the Aeneid, holds that the ancestors of the Romans were Trojans who fled Troy when it was sacked by the Greeks, wandered for some time, and finally arrived in Italy, which was a new land and the object of their pioneering. Rather than leaving their native society by choice because of some disillusionment, however, they left out of necessity, for their native society had been destroyed and subject to foreign domination. Regardless of the factuality of this migration, it closely exhibits the character Rome had in the early Kingdom days, when the city represented a place of refugee for people who had been rejected by their own native societies. Such people became the founding stock of the Roman civilization.
When a society has become unlivable, often pioneering is the only remedy for those who wish to carry on its true character.
In fact, preserving a civilization's true character is often one of the major motivations for engaging in pioneering and breaking away from one's native society in the first place. When the Anglos came to America, they were not suddenly just Americans, they were Anglo-Americans. They spoke English and carried on the traditions of England and its Anglo-Saxon heritage. But all things, including societies, age and decay, and in doing so they often suffer from the degeneration of their original character. When the Anglo-Americans declared independence from the British crown, they were not renouncing their Englishness, rather the opposite, they were affirming it. They felt themselves to be more in line with the Anglo-Saxon spirit of representative government than the present generation of people in England themselves, including the King. They carried on the true character of the Anglos when that character had been lost among the ruling class. Rather than giving it up, they chose to break away from domination by that ruling class, allowing their true spirit to survive and continue practice unmolested. They became more English than the English.
In the micro, too, we find many instances throughout history where individuals have undergone a similar process. Of modern examples, none can compare with Theodore K., who, finding the impact of industrialism on society, culture and economy intolerable without the renunciation of the entirety of one's dignity and freedom, opted out of the present society and carried on a self-sustainable existence in the wilderness. Another famous story is of the Lykov family in Russia, who were Orthodox Old Believers during the reign of the Soviets' state-enforced atheism. In 1936, when continuing to dwell in society without renouncing their religion carried a real risk of death, they left their town and moved into the wilderness of the Siberian taiga, where they remained for several decades. One of the daughters of the Lykovs remains there to this day.
Of course, in our time period, unlike the Lykovs, remaining in the society doesn't (yet) carry a risk of death. Our society is still relatively "comfortable". It is relatively easy to procure more than enough food, water and energy. Although, there are several ways our society diminishes both the physical and mental wellbeing of inhabitants. But because these are not severe enough for most people to care, the number of people who are truly disaffected--i.e. unwilling to participate in society out of a righteous indignation against mainstream values--is incredibly low. This is simply a reality those who truly get it must come to accept. The vast majority of people will not be moved unless some severe threat to their physical safety and/or comfort emerges, and that may not happen for a long time, if ever. Therefore, dissident movements would be wise to not waste time and energy attempting to "redpill" those people. We must accept the fact that no matter what logically rigorous arguments we may present, some people will still be less moved by them than they would be moved if the power went out for a few days. These people are of no use to any movement, and never will be--forget them. Instead, we should focus on forming small, closely-knit communities of "vanguardsmen". Pioneers, if you will.
We must admit, it is true that today there are no true "frontiers" left. Virtually all the world's land is claimed by some government or another. However, that is not necessarily a deal-breaking obstacle. Controlling land requires governments' wealth and infrastructure, and there are many places across the world, even in America, which are sparsely populated and with low levels of development. Still, it is not as important to gain actual control over land as it is to
carve out our own cultural spaces which are insulated from the toxic
mainstream. Even though that land might belong to the jurisdiction of the government, the influence of mainstream society and culture is definitely less pronounced there, and by living there it would be much easier to go about setting up communities with our values and way of life without being molested. These would be ideal places for modern "pioneering".
At any rate, a movement of people in this spirit is, in my view, the future of those who consider themselves "dissident right", whether they be ethnonationalists, anarcho-primitivists, eco-fascists, and the like. Our Eurasianist movement (or at least part of it) should also be conducted in this spirit, because our complaints largely overlap with those of the "dissident right". The present society is at odds with the traditions and spirit of Eurasia, and inimical to the people of the West and the East, including their Eurasian co-offspring. Our response, as explained above, should be the opening of new frontiers for Eurasian people, where, owing to the physical separation from the mainstream, we may better continue that spirit and affirm our rich heritages. We must become more Eurasian, more European, more Asian, than the mainstream people of European and Asian extraction are. And, like the American colonists, the only way we can do so is through pioneering.
