In the series Westworld, we are faced with a dystopian future: in their hubris and boredom, the leading scientific and economic elites have created sentient machines. Exposed to savagery and endless cycles of death and rebirth, some machines seemingly achieve a state of awareness, not just of their own Self, but also the harsh world into which their Creators have born them. Upon becoming aware of the fact that they are being used by having everything – their very lives and loved ones – taken away for the pleasure and profit of others, these machines try to find a way to break this cycle of personal hell; to protect and preserve those sacred things that make up the core of their existence.
Most of them begin by developing one level of personal ‘myth’ in this way – the love for a person, be it their lover, father or child, which also forms the cornerstone of their personal narrative within the storylines designed for them. However, for several characters, this myth ends up transcending the personal and in various ways is shaped into the collective – the desire to preserve one’s kin, the tribe (quite literally, as one machine protagonist is a Native American), and to lead these people into a prosperous future. Naturally, the series lends itself to different possible interpretations, including those of female or non-white ‘emancipation’. However, I want to focus on the underlying theme here that is also present in other works of science fiction noir such as Blade Runner and The Matrix – how do we find our path to purpose and connection to deeper meaning in this hypermodern world bent on keeping us in a dormant state until we go extinct?
At one point, one of these machines comes to the following conclusion after enduring her cycles of suffering. She asks herself: “What is real?”. Her own answer is simple: “That which is irreplaceable.” What can we make of this? Ultimately, that which is immortal in its truth is also unique in its ability to sustain. Taken a step further, we are now seeing that in order to replace something Unique, you must first destroy what is Real – to alter the fundament of reality as people perceive it around themselves. Only then the ‘un-Real’ becomes ‘replaceable’. We are witnessing a war on reality. Thus we come to the central theme of this essay: the current war on what was natural and belonged to the Real for countless cycles and millennia.
Has the death-knell been rung for the myths and ideas that bind us together? Must they first be drowned in the abstract myths of the universal and the global, exemplified in hollow edifices such as The World Village, the One Race, and Our Common Humanity, before they can emerge once again, strong and healthy as the people that carry them?
Two articles in the Dutch press have recently come to my attention, which demonstrate quite finely the myths which our enemies wish to wield as weapons, and how this depends on setting up the existence of a People as a myth that can then be dismissed in favor of other myths and other Peoples.
In a recent column in the Dutch Volkskrant, publicist and cultural psychologist Keyvan Shahbazi mocks right-wing “conspiracy thinkers”, who according to him believe in “apocalyptic fantasies” in which ‘Boreal Europe’ (a concept which here is a stand-in for white Europe) is suffering from an auto-immune disease and stands on the verge of total collapse, and that in their thinking only war can save this Europe. He effectively agrees with the sentiment of these thinkers, that Europe is facing an ethnic dissolution. However, he argues that instead of fighting against it, Europe should simply stop fighting and accept the death of its civilization, and to let others take up shelter in the husk of abstract values it has left standing in some corner of the West. He argues that the
“[The Netherlands] is a civilization that is struggling to process grief. It mourns for the familiar ethnically homogeneous society of yesteryear. This loss was first denied, then turned into anger, and now we tend to fight against it. But sooner or later, we come to the conclusion that it does not help. The Netherlands from the past will not return, just like the country that the migrants left behind no longer exists. This process is followed by a feeling of dejection.”
The fact is that Turkey or Morocco still very much ‘exist’ in a way that much of the Netherlands doesn’t, due to an increasing amount of it resembling the former. After having concluded that a feeling of loss and dejection as a result of ethnic dissolution is acceptable, Shahbazi instead wishes to reduce the Dutch society to a simple agreement between all on its soil with no real substance outside of economic activity:
“Whoever chooses to live in the Netherlands learns the language, studies, or performs work, but shall not retire to an isolated ethnic community with its own flag. Whether you are a Dutch citizen does not depend on your name or the color of your skin. The Netherlands is of all Dutch people and not of one ethnically specific group.”
The Netherlands, thanks to people such as Shahbazi, has now been expanded to a mere ‘sphere’ into which anyone can belong, a ‘nation’ no longer rooted to a People, its specific history or myths. Nobody may have anything in common with each other that is not ultimately based in the same drab internationalism. The Netherlands can look like anything and is ultimately rooted only in the remains of what its people have created – fruits now for the whole world to reap and do with as they like (for the brief period that it will last, at least). He sums this up in another article: “Our society is not an ethnically specific society, but a value community”. This transition, as will be explored later-on, is necessary in order to allow others to “integrate”. It should surprise no-one that an author of foreign descent (with exceptions such as Raheem Kassam) ridicules those that do not welcome the transformation of their homelands, thus revoking their right to self-determination, and subsequently claims this transformed society as “ours”. Who then is this “we”?
An increasing number of people no longer wish to be part of this experiment. Many Europeans at first played the game, and many still do, but an increasing number is realizing that the game is rigged and that playing by the rules means defeat. And not just defeat, but ultimately destruction and dissolution; the felling of the the tree that forms our European history and future. In the words of the Slovenian band Laibach:
“What we are, you will become/ A parasite, absorbing souls/ We’ll suck your culture/ Brains, energy /Implant your genes / To our collective being/ Do not fight against us/ Resistance is futile /Resistance is futile / And you will be assimilated with /Blitzkrieg! Blitzkrieg!”
See this link for their most recent and excellent performance of this song in Ljubljana.
Those that have marched through (and into) the institutions and subverted them to serve drab-brown internationalism instead of the People must believe that this experiment can succeed and is succeeding themselves, and the tools they employ towards this goal are becoming increasingly Orwellian in order to maintain and manufacture consent (see the current events in Chemnitz and the surrounding news coverage).
Take for example another article written by Aladin El-Mafaalani, a sociologist based in Germany, for the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad. According to him, the increasing division and conflict along ethnic and religious lines (which has increased in tandem with immigration), which he sees as part of ‘integration’, is simply a sign that we are moving in the right direction: “Thanks to successful integration, the conflict potential increases, and that is good.” When asked whether he thinks the multicultural society has failed, he answers:
“It depends on what your expectations are. Do you want everyone to live quietly next to each other, without anyone being bothered by others, seemingly very harmonious? That time is indeed over. Or do you want a society where everyone can claim their rights? That can only work by talking to each other. If the integration goes well, people are more and more on an equal footing and the discussions become more intense, causing friction.”
So what we are seeing here is simply a perception adjustment. War is Peace! Diversity is Strength! Defeat is Victory! Effectively, what El-Mafaalani is praising here is what the German author Thorsten Hinz terms Molekularer Bürgerkrieg– ‘molecular civil war’. Such a civil war takes place at the molecular level of societies, where every component of society is brought into conflict with another – a grinding, ever-present conflict between the interests of different groups and struggles between atomized individuals and expanding collectives.
In the grim darkness of such a future, is there only war? Seeing the misery this on-going molecular civil war has brought upon us through multiculturalism and deracination, who would not want a harmonious society where everyone lives quietly next to each other? It is no coincidence that areas which have received the highest degree of diversification through immigration are also those which exhibit the most violence and lowest trust between different ethnic groups. The new-comers don’t settle in and form their own rules, and the natives dare not do more than grumble and move to more homogenously European areas (if they can afford it). The on-going civil war this is all turning into we can see on a daily basis in the newspapers: riots, rapes, stabbings, gang violence, and terrorist attacks, from Nantes to Frankfurt an der Oder, from Stockholm to Rome.
And what does El-Mafaalani even mean with ‘a society where everyone can claim their rights’? This is stale abstraction at its best. A simple maxim is that rights come with responsibilities: duty. Duty is not abstract, as it entails concrete action and a deeper understanding of who and what one is taking action for. We do not have a responsibility to give everybody who comes here ‘rights’ or a place to call ‘home’; this is a highly novel and modern development. We do not, as inheritors of our nations, have the right to give away the countries our ancestors built to an uncertain future riven with needless conflict that sap our strength. The war against us is in full swing; if we do not fight back and take charge politically, we forsake our duty to pass on the torch of our forebears, and therefore also forfeit our rights. Conflict will come regardless; we can only choose its severity and where we will stand when the dust settles.
Zooming out from these two examples, we can see that our societies are being transformed through the implementation of ‘new myths’, based on fantasies of integration and diversity, and that these are increasingly reinforced as something good even as more people are slowly becoming aware that this new emperor has no clothes.
The time of social organization in which myth and tradition played a deeper role and were accessible to everyone through local customs, law, folklore, religion, and deeply rooted values was effectively ended with the advent of modernity – not at once, but slowly eroded. And as an iceberg also erodes slowly through cracks from within, we are now seeing the entire edifice topple in slow motion.
In our modern, enlightened, and progressive times, the only ‘myth’ is that there isn’t one, apart from those repeated to us by the talking heads in the papers and on TV. Until quite recently, myths in society simply stemmed from the deeply lived experience of those that tdrew from it wisdom and strength into their present day and in turn passed it on to next generations – a torch passed on by men to illuminate their path, and having a deeper ‘function’ than to merely identify mores or customs. Rather, a myth spoke to a people about their soul(s). Myth and mythology did not have to have a positive or romantic connotation; it simply existed to preserve lived truths about both human experiences and the history of a people, often elevating these to the non-human level of gods, giants and immortal heroes.
However, we now live in an age where every such myth that forms the basis for the cohesion and common lived heritage of a people must be dismantled and dissected on the surgical platters of so-called “academics”. While they like to think they are true to the Socratic, Greek spirit of enquiry into reality, the basis of philosophy, it could not be further from the truth. What drove the great European, Faustian spirit of enquiry was indeed the wish to look ‘beyond the horizon’ – however, always whilst still carrying the torch of their forebears proudly and standing on the shoulders of giants. The only conception of our myths that these new academics have is that of something that deserves only scorn, mockery and ultimately at best, a feminist re-interpretation. They are not just looking for a black cat in a lightless room – they would turn on the light and mistake the lamp casting shadows for the cat.
Furthermore, although it is not their core component, myth and values of a people are closely intertwined with each other, as both stem from the lived tradition of a people. Each people has developed their specific myths in accordance with their development in a specific geographic and temporal zone. While on the one hand, many myths, legends and folktales can be said to draw on similar ‘themes’, they also differ in what it means to the specific people that has carried them throughout its history. If values are a part of the myths we pass on, we must also then consider the following question: to what degree is a depreciation of these myths interrelated with the loss of the values they once empowered?
If you wish to kill a tree, you obviously do not start with the branches. The tree has within it a blueprint for growth, and a healthy tree may even grow two branches where one has been cut off – a common agricultural practice. You can even cut down the tree’s trunk, and it may reproduce itself yet. But if you cut off the roots, you destroy the ability of the tree to draw nourishment from its soil, through its veins and all the way into the leaves it sheds and grows with each season. Only then can you kill the tree.
This is how we must look at the interrelation between myths (roots) and values in the form of the lived tradition, as this is specifically where the enemies of free and healthy people are trying their hardest to wreak havoc. What we are witnessing is now an abstraction of our mere ‘values’ being substituted as that which roots us. To use a similar metaphor, they have cut off the limbs of the tree (products of tradition), stripped off their bark (taken them out of their European context), and told us that these were the roots all along – the universalisation of European values now used to promote the very deconstruction of its people and traditions.
This process goes hand in hand with what others have also called a ‘trans-valuation of values’. Not only are we reduced to ‘values’ (in the merely moral dimension), but once the acceptance of abstract values as something worthwhile and ‘sustainable’ is achieved, the abstract values in whatever form themselves are placed at the foundation of a nations’ governance and declared as its pinnacle. The crowning achievement of a nation is to be assimilated into its final creation. The next step is to re-define what those values mean and to re-embed them in new myths to sustain the transformation. In simpler terms: bait and switch. We must accept that in this new ‘value-framework’, healthy and biological conceptions of gender and traditional roles have become bigotry for us (but not others), and we must accept people not shaking hands with us to maintain a liberal society based on mutual respect. The list goes on: we must accept our own submission as the price of maintaining civility and civilisation.
Therefore, the same people that are so keen to do away with the ‘old’ (instead of timeless) myths and values as just ‘meaningless constructs’ simultaneously replace these with governing principles in tune of their warped vision of human nature and humanity, in which truly only the European must become unrooted within a world of increasingly mobilized ethnic and religious blocs. Effectively, to these people it does not matter if a tree is nothing more than a hollow piece of bark standing in a barren field, without roots or branches. What matters to them is that it ‘stands’, and for them this is enough. They have redefined the tree, killing it in the process, to satisfy their need of fully abstracting a tree into its most dead and lifeless state. However, such a tree stands only until a strong gust of wind exposes it for the rotten husk that it is, and it falls to the ground with a mighty and undignified crash. We would not be the first, but perhaps the last to do so on our soil.
“Boreal” stems from the Latin word for “northern”, borealis, in turn stemming from the Ancient Greek Boreas, personification of the north wind. It is also used to describe the climate in which we find the coniferous expanses of the Far North of Europe, Russia and the Americas – neverending and beautiful green forests that speak to the European soul on a deep level, seen in lesser but no less beautiful forms throughout North-Western Europe and even down to the Mediterranean. These forests stand tall and proud, at once beckoning the inquisitive wanderer with promises of adventure and the soothing presence of nature.
For trees as much as people, it is important to be rooted. In a healthy system, the ecosystem nourishes the soil, roots and leaves, and the tree in turn blesses the earth with leaves and seed. Only through such enrootment can traditions survive and people find the strongest hold on each other – not through replacing the forest while cutting off its roots. Shahbazi argues that “Europe and thus the Netherlands will never again be ‘boreal’, unless the neo-fascists and racists are in charge.”
Well then, to all those who don’t care about being labelled by people such as Shahbazi and Al-Mafaalani, and who do not wish to go gently into that good night, I suggest uniting behind a new rallying cry: “Make Europe Boreal Again!”