“Adventure, huh? That word stirs up some longing, resentful emotions. I wouldn’t trade in my time as a homeless, hungry teenager, because it’s part of my character and my self-image. But as soon as I got a little security I didn’t want to let it go, and when I was young enough for adventure I saw no value in it.” Reader Heretic Phi


The Open Road

Freedom is not exactly the same thing as liberty, the latter entailing responsibility. In the comments under a recent post, reader JumpinJackFash kicks things off with a response to Suburban_elk’s riffing on youthful optimism and its derailment into techno-utopian fantasy:

I am a young man and you hit the nail right on. I dont want to stay in one place and I want much more than a simple steady life in a homogenous community because I dont think thats enough.

In response, I wrote a few words about my own period of wanderings during the early 1990s and how I value it now:

Right after high school, I dropped out of college and in a series of forays, drifted around places like east Tennessee, before going into the Army for a couple of years. There were more rough and frustrating moments than happy ones. I was always broke — spending half of my income on cigarettes, working on and off in restaurants and sleeping in my car or in cheap motels — and I had no idea where I was going for a while, but today I would not trade those couple of years for anything.

Where the 1950s America Failed

On the Alt-Right, commenters make the blog and aside from the host’s periodic supernova outburst of insight, the comments sections of blogs is where ideas churn. On that note, Trainspotter weighs in with this grand slam, raising the scope of the discussion to the very heart of White man’s restless brilliance:

A young man needs some adventure, and the best adventures involve trial & tribulation. That’s why just going back to Leave it to Beaver won’t be enough (though it would be a fantastic improvement over where we’re at today, obviously).

A healthy tribe is going to have rites of passage through which a young man can prove himself – through which he can gain respect and become a man, learning to hold his head high. Leave it to Beaver didn’t really offer that – it was largely just about being “nice” and becoming a productive worker bee. Nothing wrong with either of those things as far as they go but, again, it’s not enough. It’s spiritually dead and deeply unsatisfying to an important part of what we are. The European soul craves more; it needs more. If necessary, it will upend and destroy the world to get that “more.” It will even destroy itself.

In a sense, the 50’s were actually very feminine without being feminist – its masculine aspect was a dwindling holdover from another age. Looking back, it’s no great surprise that such a society would fold like a cheap suit, giving way with virtually no meaningful resistance to the degeneracy which quickly followed. From Leave it to Beaver to White Genocide within a single human lifespan.

Traditionally, our people created honor-based societies which produced the best of both worlds – toughness as well as manners, martial vigor as well as beautiful art. These things, superficially at odds to the ignorant modern mind, actually go together quite well. For our people, anyway; with other races your mileage may vary.

Whites must rekindle those old flames, both to achieve our own homelands and to defend them once they are ours again. Among countless benefits, a European honor culture will have no problem preventing racial aliens from trespassing upon the tribe.

Check him out on twitter: @trainspotter001. Heretic Phi agrees:

As idealistic and wonderful as that world in the past looks to me from this decomposing, empty society we live in, something important was missing from that era. Something lost in security, success and scale. Or how then did it fall so quickly? A kind of cowardly ignorance, or something. I wasn’t there so it’s hard to say. Like we (they?) hadn’t adapted to the invention of television yet, and were too easily seduced by the warm snuggly comfort of trusting authority.

It was a one-two punch. We opened the door to anarchy through our acquiescence to Civil Rights. We opened the door to tyranny when we acquiesced to the Patriot Act.

Murkan Liberalism vs. Warsaw Pact Communism

One of the phenomena of living under our present condition of anarcho-tyranny is the nostalgia for mere tyranny, minus its “anarcho-” partner. In extreme cases, some of us get a wistful feeling at the sight of an ethnically pure North Korean city with docile citizens marching in and out of their humble apartments. Even I flirted with that sub-rational form of Communism-nostalgia. And more openly, I’ve written fondly about my childhood in 1970s Warsaw.

Former Yugoslavian dissident Srdja Trifkovic makes an eloquent statement about the old Iron Curtain Communism; specifically, the degree of  freedom of thought and conscience it allowed relative to our conditions in the contemporary West. Here is a short excerpt:

Now, in those days it was possible to […] have on the one hand, the official discourse to which everyone had to at least formally subscribe, and on the other hand to have the private discourse of the family and friends. And that there was, one might say, a parallelism between the state above and the society below.

Now, in the terrorist phase of the Bolshevik revolution, there was a deliberate and very bloody attempt to blend the two, and that was the period of Lenin’s liquidation of the priests and intelligentsia, and Stalin’s liquidation of the Kulaks and the late run of “deviants” of all kinds.

But by the mid-50s, especially after Stalin’s death, what we had was the settling down of a system in which it was possible, oddly enough, to be free within the circle of one’s friends and family, and not to subscribe to official ideological norms wholeheartedly. You could go through the motions of display if you’re obliged to do so — if you’re a member of the Party, if you’re a part of the Nomenklatura — but when push came to shove, people behind closed doors with other people they could trust, could be themselves. And then it was possible to have meaningful conversations about politics, economy, or culture, or religion without the blinkers of imposed right-thinking. And then it was possible to be free.

Today in the postmodern Western world, it’s very hard, regardless of where you reside or what social circle you mix with, to exchange any meaningful thoughts on race, on immigration, on educational policy, on cultural policy, without encountering some seriously strange looks, and even strained and uncomfortable reactions from friends and neighbors. And that’s why you avoid these conversations.

So in other words, in a funny way, I might say I feel less free today, in my fifties in the United States, than I did in my teens as a teenager in Tito’s Yugoslavia because at least with people you could trust, and with people who shared the same cultural and social milieu that you come from, you could share your innermost thoughts without being looked upon as an eccentric or a deviant. Of course, if the secret policeman heard you, he might have looked upon you as a dissident and then it’s a totally different kettle of fish. You may have some difficulties, you may be expelled from school, you may even have your telephone tapped or your passport withdrawn or whatever, but you could at least functionwithin the parameters of what was a society untouched by the stateas a free person.

Trifkovic is not an apologist, nor does he advocate Communism in any way. What he’s saying is that the tyranny we live under right now is deeper-reaching and more insidious than one Eastern Europeans had lived under then. Notably, every former Cold War émigré of my parents’ generation with whom I have discussed this video emphatically agrees with what Trifkovic is saying.

Though maybe what some of us miss from Communist days, at least from my own then-child’s point-of-view, is its own kind of freedom. Middle class American children are kept close to home under their parents’ eye in the helicopter-parenting Zeitgeist born of the paradoxical anxieties of diversity and the intrusive state. I noticed that my strongest pangs of Communism-nostalgia point to recollections of being seven or eight years old, bus and tram numbers memorized, roaming freely about the city. To this day, the smell of diesel exhaust on a cold snowy day takes me back there.

“To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield”

After we overcome the present system, we will have to remain vigilant about restoring our rough American internal freedoms, which are possible in a country that will once again have external security, and not overshoot into the realm of tight control over ourselves. I wrote this short meditation about the value of balancing order and chaos in the “What Have We Learned” post:

Man has a wild side that compels him to find life under perfect order stultifying. Life needs an element of chaos to remind us that it all hangs on a thin string and to steer us clear of Eloi-like complacency and softening of character. Passion and creativity come from the darker recesses of our soul and thrive under a touch of danger.

Over the course of his life, a man realigns his spirit from youth’s fire to maturity’s self-command. In that transition, his temperament changes from adventurousness to territoriality, where he demarcates his claim on the world. As fathers and as men who’ve come to glean bits of life’s lessons, we become future-invested in desiring to create the same opportunities we had—and to preserve and expand the same space we enjoyed—for our next generation.

And yet, that spark of wanderlust never quite dies. I was recently riding a bike through the city when a large truck began drifting toward me from my left, parked cars to my right. Adrenaline and instinct did their thing as I maneuvered myself out of danger. Danger makes you feel alive. Come spring, a group of friends and I are heading for the mountains.

Victorian poet Lord Alfred Tennyson wrote “Ulysses” in 1833, dramatizing the restlessness of an old adventurer upon reclaiming his estates. The full poem is HERE; below are its concluding lines:

Come, my friends,
‘T is not too late to seek a newer world.
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Tennyson’s superannuated Odysseus (I’m used to the Greek names) entrusted his son with the task of ruling the family’s lands and sailed off once more. Yet right this moment, a pair of piercing blue eyes opens amidst the bustle of maternity ward’s nurses. A little wanderer cries, impatient to test his wings and to roam, maybe setting his aim on descending to the gutters of Hades or ascending the peak of Olympus—either way, forged to stand in radiance and despise chains, proof-enough that we are created in the image of God.

16 thoughts on “Freedom

  1. Under Tito (and all of the Soviets), one had to “believe” that Communism was the way, or one would earn the wrath of the State.

    Under postmodern liberalism, one has to believe that all men and women are created exactly perfectly equal, and if there’s any differences in quality of life it’s because of some hidden oppression.

    The State cared about not being overthrown, so a minimum standard was no-revolutions. So long as the minimum standard of no-revolutions was being met, there was no real need to go further.

    The postmodern liberal cares about everybody and everything being perfectly identically equal, be it race, sex, culture, aptitude, resources… everything must be identical. But even they, themselves, know that it’s not true. A minimum standard would be met with absolute perfect equality of everything everywhere. But they know it can’t happen, and the falsity of their beliefs cannot be allowed to be brought out into the light without everything collapsing. They cannot allow people to know:
    …that the Chinese “middle class” whose numbers equal those of the U.S. are supported by a billion (with a B) slaves who have no voice and no rights
    …that the money spent on public schools which has increased every year for four decades is wasted because the children who are not performing cannot be taught to perform to higher standards
    …that lowering those standards is insufficient as underperformers will never meet any standard no matter how low as they’ve no internal motivation to maintain society and are only concerned with what they can take with little effort
    …that the underperformers are black, and hiding behind the word “racist” as an excuse for why blacks perform so poorly in schools won’t increase the level of ability of any of the kids forced through that crucible
    …that normal white men built this nation up from nothing but bare ground with no government assistance, no guidance, and no formal education, and still managed to create a society where everyone is nominally equal regardless of outcome
    …that women don’t care about laws, just or unjust, so long as they can get the man for whom they’re willing to submit
    …that the only happy women on earth are those living through the true beauty of submission to their dominant man, all other women being unhappy no matter how “successful” they are
    …that ultimately, men and women are so fundamentally different that a man cannot achieve “happiness” in his life without fighting for it, whereas a woman cannot be happy without submission

    You know what, I’m going to stop right there. I could go on and on and on, and I already have a bit.

    The beauty of the Red Pill is accepting ALL of the lies for what they are, and seeing the world as it really is.

  2. Greg…

    And so the critical battle revolves around the imposition of “perfection,” ie., objective supremacy, either in its absolute sense OR in its liberal conception of “equality.”

  3. Pingback: Freedom | Reaction Times

  4. Do Americans ever really feel that belonging that people of other nations talk about?

    Even in better times, what was our community, what were our common bonds.

    I think that even in better times, our community was somehow more of an abstraction. We have always been more rootless.

    The situation in America is so different than in Europe.

    There is a lot of confusion, everywhere though. People who don’t need to feel connected and rooted, are able to prosper. And not just the chinese and the jews.


    a man cannot achieve “happiness” in his life without fighting for it

    I think that is very true; or at least very true of the better class of men. On the other hand characterizing that class as better is a judgment and

    Who is to say, really.

    I have observed many times, that many people seem to lack confidence for not having been put to the test. It gets back to coming of age and being a man.

    That basic transition. How many people are CONVINCING men, of the 50 Americans that you cross paths with, on a day-to-day?

    Is Terry Bradshaw a man, would you reckon, from a handshake and cocktail party?

    How about Tommy Lee Jones, who was gayface by the way … yeah, a little bit. He has the very reserved and worried lines of a man suffering from but not indulging, in that. I saw that movie No Country for Old Men, last night, and he is not well cast in it as the old school lawman; almost, but not quite. It needed Clint Eastwood, i have no idea who else could even have come close.

    How many per 50 white men, in America, are convincing, as men. How many per 50 black American men. How many per 50 Arab immigrants, per 50 Mexicans.

    I would say for sure that white people are more unfulfilled in that metric, but that might be quite a bit due to their more … their more something or another.

  5. That is a big original post, covers a lot of ground.

    A part of it that interests me, is our self-censorship and more to the point, our experienced reality of it.

    I don’t talk politics much at all, in real life. If you aren’t voting for Trump, then who the hell are you and how can you be so stupid. Unfortunately that includes people with whom i break bread. How can that be. I have said to them, in the past, “You are betraying your children and sacrificing your unborn grandchildren” or something as over-the-top as that, and not meaning to be dramatic but just trying to get the damned point across! but they don’t see it.

    They see Trump as an ego-driven person and they are not inspired by his populist appeal.

  6. That is a big original post, covers a lot of ground.

    It was originally just going to be Trainspotter’s comment, featured as a “COTW” but then I started thinking more about the subject. I originally had a more grandiose title for the post, a very WN’ish one, but then it occurred to me that I may be getting formulaic. Looking at the other featured comments, along with Trainspotter’s astute observation, it occurred to me that there is a paradox. We desire things we can’t have, we ignore the things we have until we lose them. And yet, there is that constant hunger in our nature.

    The stuff I wrote about my own early 20s was relevant as well and I included one of the very few photos I have from that time. I figure that the alphabet agencies already know everything about me anyway, and SJWs can’t do shit with the pic I posted. By the way, out of curiosity, I looked up that spot on Google Maps. Looks the same nearly a quarter-century later, except for the trees in the middle-ground. The one on the left (behind the sign) is still there. The one on the right is gone. Also, the sign has been replaced with a fancier one.

    Contrary to speculations, no, that photo was NOT taken by a glamorous ageing woman humming a song she was in the midst of composing, with the words “standing by the road, with no umbrella, no coat…”

  7. …that women don’t care about laws, just or unjust, so long as they can get the man for whom they’re willing to submit
    …that the only happy women on earth are those living through the true beauty of submission to their dominant man, all other women being unhappy no matter how “successful” they are
    …that ultimately, men and women are so fundamentally different that a man cannot achieve “happiness” in his life without fighting for it, whereas a woman cannot be happy without submission

    I’ve got a few semi-rational SWPL friends that will debate politics with me in good humor without screeching “racist” at every turn. (maybe every 3rd of 4th turn, but that’s still progress). They never have a good answer when you ask them to name a non-patriarchal country that has a decent standard of living, they just change the subject and start regurgitating Bernie talking points or diversity-speak. They also never have an answer when you point out that some of the world’s most stable countries are also some of its least homogonous (Iceland, Denmark, Japan) and that India is certainly the most multi-cultural nation in human history but that economic advancement there is heavily stifled by the lack of trust and teamwork between neighbors and castes.

    Then I tell them that we already have an example of human civilization which shows the eventual future of liberalism as it achieves its goal of establishing hyper-feminized humanity completely free of White Western patriarchy and wait for their answer.. They’re not too happy when I tell them that it’s called “Africa” but then I can briefly turn the mirror back on them and accuse them of racism for not praising Africans for seeing the wisdom of avoiding the colonial, capitalist mindset that spawned the huge volumes of “oppressive” moral, religious and legal codes that Europeans created.

    And absent capitalism African men do not let themselves become obsessed with work, do not invest in the future or in their children, and do not support mates in the nuclear-family setting. All of that is womens’ work, just as you see with blacks in the USA. Cooperation is difficult because trust is nonexistent, with everyone taking multiculturalism to its very extreme – tribalism. Consequently, that civilization does not need the white man’s oppressive capitalist laws (or any structure whatsoever) because there’s no capital to conserve or protect and therefore very little “inequality.”

    The only difference between that society and the USA is that America is starting off large, stable, wealthy and orderly… but take away patriarchy and there’s nothing to keep these pillars of the modern, advanced nation together – it all devolves into disjointed fiefdoms and clanocracies.

    I’ve been defriended by a few of these SWPL’s, lol.

  8. Your post is especially thought provoking. I am a throw away kid from the 80s. I was the runt of the litter with two very successful older brothers. One and alpha with women and one an alpha with men. The first had the most attractive girls in high school begging him while he treated them like shit. The other was a badass. He once commenced fighting an entire hall full of blacks. Both of my brothers were suspended for 10 days to avoid a race riot when this happened. When I mentioned the name of my second brother, I have had grown men respond with wide eyes and respect.

    My Dad went nuts and ended up in prison, mom went nuts. Grandparents were the only ones that gave a crap. I went into drug tx at age 15. A lot of loneliness and misery. But there were so many great adventures and stories that, cliche, make me who I am.

    I now have three kids. My kids live in a great home in a great community. But they have no stories. What is a life without stories or struggle?

    – The Alabama sign reminds me of my friend in middle school who moved to Alabama and then ran away back up to Illinois with his friend. They were going to hustle pool to stay in Illinois. I went to the pool hall with them and watched them lose the money they brought with them.

    – The other youngsters in drug tx with me that I stayed in some form of contact with have either died young or ended up as arch conservatives.

    -I talked about the Decalogue tonight at dinner in reference to your point about contrasting communist Poland with the contemporary U.S. and the Kardasians.

    -I have identified with your comments for a long time. Thank you for starting a blog. I love it.

  9. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” (CS Lewis)

  10. We didn’t acquiesce to civil rights. It was forced on us by the Civil War, then the assassination of Lincoln and the near-removal of Johnson, the 14th Amendment, Reconstruction, and the 1864 Civil Rights Act. That’s right, 1864 not 1964. In 1964 LBJ pushed through another one, but it was not the first.

    We didn’t acquiesce. We were worn down and fought by every devious means. I’ve lived a long time now, a lot of this nonsense has happened in my lifetime, and they never got my approval for it.

  11. Pingback: 100th Post – PA

  12. Pingback: How America Can Be Made Great Again – PA

Comments are closed.