THE NOMAD VS. THE SEDENTARY: SURVIVING THE ROOTLESS FUTURE

by Charles Jansen

An important vector of human difference is that between the Nomadic and the Sedentary. It allows us to interpret a host of related issues, ranging from the uprooting of Europeans to the celebration of Nomadism itself, and the unequal toleration for certain groups.

What do the terms mean? Nomad comes from the Greek νομάς, designating shepherds who moved with their flocks from pasture to pasture. Sedentary comes from the Latin sedentarius, which can be interpreted as designating a state of sitting, but also a state of stability or rest.

The Biblical story of Cain and Abel presents two embodiments of each lifestyle: Cain is a farmer, hence a Sedentary, to the point of being the alleged founder of the first city, while Abel, as a shepherd, is the archetypal Nomad. Interestingly, the Bible shows that despite their common origin, the relationship between Nomad and Sedent is fraught with tragedy.

ANTI-FRAGILITY: RIDING NASSIM TALEB'S TIGER

by Charles Jansen

An essential concept for understanding the Old (or fake) Right and its inability to defeat the Left is "fragility" – normally defined as the quality of being easily broken or damaged. It has been noted that such right wingers are people who either want to ignore momentum and impose a status quo, which means being Conservative, or LARPers, who yearn for some previous unobtainable moment in history. Many of the disagreements on the right basically boil down to "My LARPing doesn’t line up with your LARPing."

But the essential point about those on the Old Right is their sense of fragility, a feeling that any change or shift will make them lose out in terms of income and social status. This inevitably pushes then to the wrong side of the System. Rather than their defended position, it is this fragility and the fears it generates that comes to define them.

They effectively act like people with osteoporosis fearful of any knock or bump. This is why you see New York Conservatives hobnobbing with Democrats – and submitting to their anti-White agenda. Also, many millennials move to the Left against their better inclinations simply because it gets them a job, money, and social recognition, while people on the Right live in fear of SJWs and "social shaming."

"RENÉ GUÉNON DOES NOT EXIST": A REMINDER FOR THOSE ON THE RIGHT

by Charles Jansen

René Guénon (1886-1951) is mainly acknowledged on the Right for having had a deep influence on Julius Evola. Though both thinkers could disagree on small issues, the latter held the former in a sufficiently high esteem to praise him as “a teacher for modern times”, something he would never have said about any philosopher or post-Enlightenment intellectual.

Beyond Evola, Guénon also had an important legacy in religious and comparative studies. His detailed works on Hinduism played a crucial role in shaping research of the so-called Oriental world. Despite the fact that some of Guénon’s reflections are far from politically correct, his books are still sold by the prestigious and over-the-counter Parisian publisher Gallimard. The religious historian Mircea Eliade, whom one may hear about if he opts for comparative studies today, also held a deep interest in Guénon’s views – at a time when he was also close to Corneliu Codreanu.

Even though he achieved success through his works, Guénon always rejected the labels of “philosopher” or “intellectual.” Such labels, he wrote in The Crisis of the Modern World, correspond to men who pursue innovation or originality at all cost, by “put[ting] their name to a ‘system’, that is, to a strictly limited and circumscribed set of theories, which shall belong to them and be exclusively their creation.” Rather than that, Guénon merely aimed to be a messenger, someone who gives to others a renewed access to a long-forgotten transcendence.

THE BITTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE

 The fatal flaws of Classical Liberalism 

by Charles Jansen

The Classical Liberal – as opposed to the contemporary statist-favoring one – was, deep within, a saintly creature. The same can be said for his current heir, the Libertarian. The quest for equal rights embodied in both arises from a search for a compromise between equality and freedom, in short, a carefully crafted synthesis between the two. For the Classical Liberal and the Libertarian, liberty is sacred, but it has to be bestowed on everyone in order to avoid absolutism or unfair domination from the State.

But, of course, a major flaw in all this, is that any remaining difference can be conceptualized as an inequality, so equality has to be stopped somewhere. Rights shall be equal, but individuals' property and social status shall remain beyond the pale of state intervention – as much as possible. Every citizen shall be a right-bearer, but his rights shall not intrude on other people's rights, nor shall he be forced to do anything for them beyond minimal social intercourse. As libertarians say, “we want to take over the world, and then leave you alone.”