Recall from the previous parts that traditionalism reconnects man with the wisdom of his ancestors, that the most important wisdom is to acknowledge God, and that intuition is the foundation of wisdom. Recall also that man also needs revelation and personal repentance in order to be wise, and that once he has begun to repent of liberalism he is ready to find teachers of wisdom.
Once you have repented of your participation in the modern system, and once you understand the general framework for attaining knowledge of the most basic truths, where exactly can you go to begin learning the true order of the world and the traditions of your people? This learning generally cannot be had in the formal educations offered by schools, colleges and universities. With the existence of occasional exceptions acknowledged, American schools generally do not teach the wisdom of the ages or American tradition, or at best, they only teach them as just one set of options among many equally-valid (and therefore equally-invalid) options. Under the rule of modernism, believing the truth about the order of being is generally thoughtcrime.
Traditionalism must therefore be learned through unofficial channels.
Although we learn best through contact with living teachers, wisdom resides primarily in literature, through which we commune with the great teachers of the past. And the great literature of the past, through which the order of being can be known, is still available.
If you are the sort of person who reads essays like this, you are probably aware of the basic corpus of classic Western literature: The Iliad and The Odyssey, the Confessions and Consolation of Philosophy, Summa Theologica and The Republic, Moby Dick and War and Peace, etc. And let us identify the classic of all classics, the Bible
These works are classic because they have been found to express the wisdom of the ages. Except for the Bible not everything they say is true or edifying, of course, but they have stood the test of time and they richly reward the careful reader.
Does this mean that a traditionalist must read all the classics? No. Except for the Bible, an American traditionalist may have read few of them, or even none of them. They are not the prerequisite of traditionalism.
Instead, a traditionalist must begin learning the wisdom that is contained most clearly in the classics, and it has historically been true that the reading and discussion of classic literature has been the most common vehicle to instruct the young in the wisdom of the ages. Through this study, if all goes well, the young commune with both a living teacher who may become an embodiment of wisdom and with the greater teacher who is the author of the text. Through this study, if all goes well, the young are led to a more accurate and profound understanding of the order they first glimpse through intuition.
Remember, man has a natural intuition of the order of being, the knowledge of which is wisdom. By attuning yourself to this intuition you can begin learning the order of the world every day, even in mundane tasks. But the classroom study of classic literature is valuable because it provides concentrated doses of this instruction, and because it articulates the order of the world more sharply and accurately than is possible when you study alone.
The order of being can also be learned through some works of classic cinema and fine art. The cinema and fine art of the present day are often corrupt, expressing nihilism or overt evil, which is why we point the reader to the classics.
And, in a most personal and accessible way, some of the order of being can be learned in the good traditionalist conservative weblogs. This author recommends most highly the following three websites:
Context and numbers are everything.
A small number of people of different race can join a majority group without changing the identity of the group, because, being a small number, they act as individuals and are seen as individuals, though they may be seen as exotics.
A massive number of people of different race fundamentally changes the whole society. Then it becomes a matter, not of individuals joining an existing culture, but of one group and its culture replacing another group and its culture.
This distinction is all important. You must understand it if you are to understand the immigration problem.
If you don’t get the distinction between a few people and a lot of people, you are going to go on believing the neoconservative fantasy that you can transform an entire country from a 100 percent or a 90 percent white country to a majority nonwhite country and everything is going to remain the same. You’re not going to see the reality of, for example, the Mexican invasion, in which Mexicans are involved in a national/racial takeover of major parts of the U.S., in which they, the Mexicans, are conscious of themselves gaining power as a group, and of the whites as losing power.
As we see in places throughout the country, particularly California, when a foreign people moves in en masse, they bring their culture, their way of life, their notions of law and order, their notions of right and wrong, their ethnic and national loyalties, with them. The former majority people and their way of life are pushed aside, and a new people and way of life displace them. You may THINK that culture has nothing to do with race. But that doesn’t change the fact that one people brings one culture, and displaces another people with another culture.
Over the last 50 years, America has witnessed the cultural devastation of femininity and motherhood. When women fall, an entire way of life and civilization itself are not far behind. In order to reverse this state of affairs, a profound change in attitudes and prevailing mores is necessary. It’s not a question of returning to a former time, such as the 1950’s or the Victorian era, but of returning, as Richard Weaver put it, to the center of things, to the essence of who we are.
Attitudes are not all. We need ultimately to reverse existing laws and practices. First and foremost, we must restore customary economic discrimination in favor of men. America’s businesses and institutions must be free once again to favor men over women in hiring. If they are not, family life will never return to a reasonable state of health; the happiness of women and children will continue to decline; and men will fail to flourish and prosper.
It will take many years to recover the sensibility that sanctions a form of discrimination that was once common. It’s important to begin laying the groundwork. The essential foundation of change is a renewed understanding of ideas and practices that were once so basic and unspoken we did not feel the need to make them explicit or to defend them. Let’s begin this task together by clarifying the issue.
What is customary discrimination?
Customary discrimination, in relation to the sexes, is the voluntary and informal practice of favoring men over women in hiring. It is not encoded in law or enforced by regulation. It exists as a result of a common understanding that men must support families and cannot adequately do so if they compete with large numbers of women, a form of competition that lowers their wages and reduces their marketability. The relative stagnation of men’s wages in the last 50 years proves the point.
Why and when did customary discrimination end?
Customary discrimination came to an official end with the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made discrimination against women in hiring unlawful, and its subsequent enforcement by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. At the time the 1964 legislation was adopted, there was not widespread agitation for a change. The bill was the work of a relatively small minority. However, given the subsequent change in attitudes regarding sex roles, this radical experiment in social change was inevitable. It wasn’t dissatisfaction with home life so much as the novelty of the unknown and the romantic fantasies of the minority of feminists temperamentally unsuited to domesticity that convinced impressionable women to pour into the market for careers.
Businesses have profited from the end of discrimination as it opened up the pool of available labor and provided a check on wages.
- Why should anyone care what consenting adults do in private?
Private conduct doesn’t stay private, especially when it involves something as basic to human life as sex. Among other things, private consensual sex gives rise to babies, family life, knife fights, betrayal, self-sacrificing devotion, and STDs. All these things are of concern to persons other than those immediately involved, so public standards regarding the conduct that leads to them can be a good thing if they help promote some and reduce others.
- If there are “public standards” on sex won’t there be discrimination?
Certainly. People who act in ways others consider antisocial and wrong do get treated differently. Otherwise society could not exist, and as a practical matter moral education would be impossible. There’s nothing special about sex in that regard. People who think racism is bad don’t always treat racists the way they treat other people. Liars don’t get the same respect as honest men, and sometimes get called hard names, and in special circumstances even get tossed in jail. Of course it’s true that differential treatment can go too far. Theft is wrong, but the common-law penalty for stealing goods worth twelvepence (hanging) was too severe. Still, life must go on, and we must recognize and respond to wrong in ways that keep alive our sense of its wrongfulness even though sometimes responses have gone too far.
- Who are other people to say what sexual conduct is right for me?
Who are other people to say what is polite, what honesty requires, what constitutes slander, harassment or betrayal of trust, or how much you should pay to support government operations? Views differ on all issues that have to do with human relations. Nonetheless, distinctions must be made and some distinctions must be made socially rather than individually. Sexuality touches us at the heart of what we are. It is intertwined with our most basic connections to others. It is the root of procreation, the family and the rearing of children, and thus of continued social existence and well-being. Standards that determine what sex is and what it is for are therefore fundamental rules for how we live together that can no more be viewed as a matter of individual choice than the standards of ordinary honesty or the rules of property. We need such standards to define our common moral world so we can agree where we are and what we have a right to expect from each other. Would it really make life better, for example, if husbands and wives had no social support whatever for expectations about their relationship and each other’s sexual conduct?