Every so often here at RidingTheTiger, we get messages saying that we’re going too far, and that we need to tone down our rhetoric. Such people sometimes say that we are pushing away allies and making our message less popular through advocating a reactionary or “extreme” platform. In a word, they wish that we would become more moderate.
In some respects they are correct. We do not pretend that our message is going to be palatable to the vast majority of the Western public, nor is it our goal, necessarily to make compromises in our ideology in order to appease our enemies. Our mission is not to fish for allies, and our message is not meant to be one for the light-hearted. Our goal has never been to appease the misunderstandings of others, nor is it — as is the practice of supposedly “conservative” organizations nowadays — to uphold the status quo of a decadent society. Anyone who has been offended by what we say here fully has the right to feel offended, but we are under no obligation to change our worldview to appease them.
It is practical that every political or cultural movement have, at the very least, a core set of values. The spirit of Traditionalism embodies the noble Weltanschauung of all which is heroic, masculine, and at times, defiantly reactionary. While the pessimists hold that at worst, any political revival of Tradition may be impossible, there are those who believe that it may be possible to revive some of these traditions on a small scale through mobilising the masses to a truly culturally conservative revolution. Such a revolution must have clear goals and clear principles around which those taking part should rally.
Today, many self-proclaimed “conservatives” are constantly agitating for compromise with “the other side”. More often than not, such people are merely opportunists who ignore, at costly effects, the fact that the modernists and bourgeois-liberals have no desire to make any concessions of their own. This is to say that the “true believers” in the secular-liberal system are only interested in using the agents of compromise to sabotage the political process from within, and those without the proper ideological training are constantly falling victim to such subterfuges. To such people, the only “compromise” that they will accept is that of the opposite side’s values, and whoever disagrees is either a racist, anti-semite, a totalitarian, or mentally ill. Needless to say, those who do not take a strong stand against both internal and external opponents are at a disadvantage.
In what we’ve come to know as partisan politics, compromise is often viewed as a good thing, because it can at least create the illusion of accomplishment. Each bill that is passed in Congress is considered another step in the march towards tomorrow. But this system at best is an exercise in groupthink and opportunism. Examining the voting records of any politician in the world will expose the fact that the modern politicians are known to waver on an issue in order to gain votes in the next election, as a result of the inverted materialistic, and short-term focus of democracy. However, after centuries of subversion, even at the most practical level, it is not possible for those who truly want to reform society to gain the desired results by “working with the system”.
If we trace the devolution of society, we can contrast the modern world with that of the classical world. In the ancient world, there was a strict hierarchy of socio-political, and religious-spiritual functions. Masculinity, bravery, honour, and intellectualism were upheld by men of good breeding. By contrast, today’s world is ruled by financial oligarchs of questionable worth, who in turn rely on the consumers and anti-intellectual lumpenproletariat for support, promoting a dysgenic egalitarianism and the reign of quantity over quality.
However, we need not trace the irrationality of such “compromise” to its most ancient roots. In fact, the rabid secularism and humanism of today would be at conflict even with the religion and general attitudes of a century ago. Whereas even liberals 100 years ago might have recognized the permission of a church to deny certain persons sacraments, in the ultra-modern era, “conservative” British Parliamentarians are demanding that churches be forced to perform homosexual marriages.
Yet another, but broader, example of where being “moderate” is useless is in the men’s rights movement. There are surely a few activists who rightly point out the problems with feminist extremism. Still fewer go further and speak out and meekly voice protest against feminist policy at the highest level of government. While these are good things to focus on, there relatively few, if any, who would actually dare to touch the Holy Grail of modernity, equality, seemingly forgetting that it was the demand for absolute equality in the first place that feminism was based on. They also seem to forget that a majority of feminists don’t want equality, but reverse discrimination, and that fourth-wave feminists are anything but moderate. But, sadly, a large portion of men’s rights activists seem to ignore this, and instead, they focus on minor issues that they face in the modern world, such as having to hold the door open for women (which they incorrectly define as “chivalry”).
Sometimes, non-violence is suicide. Similarly, compromise is suicide when there are those who want nothing more than to see your downfall, since in the end, they — being adherents to the false religion of progress — will demand more and more compromise.
For these reasons, those who are meekly advocating a half-hearted “compromise” with liberals are doing more harm than good. They are in essence promoting the victory of the decadent liberal gradualists, who have incrementally been destroying Western civilisation, and who also aspire to destroy Eastern civilisation by proxy through violent wars on innocent civilians. Only when the liberals, secularists, and modernists disavow and fully condemn their own extremists, such as Andrea Dworkin, Jesse Jackson, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and last but not least, Barack Obama, a host of others, can any talk of mediation and compromise begin.
Until then, we must hold aloft the banner of Traditionalism and Traditionalist thought, and advance without fear.