There’s a book going around lately called America Against America. You can read a book review here or if you prefer audio content there’s a podcast on it here. H/T the former for this quote:
if society is left to develop naturally, traditional values will be difficult to preserve, and the trend of social development will always be to constantly eliminate the past, the new generation will inevitably have no concept of the past, and without education there will be no continuity. …. Who, then, will perform this social function? Everyone who thinks about social stability and development, I am afraid, must first think about this issue.
-Wang Huning
This is one of the more difficult truths to swallow, because it reveals how much more work has to be done by, essentially, unpaid volunteers. Removing organized crime from power may be the first step, but it’s far from over after that, and what unites the warring dissident factions if not a common enemy? The future is not bright.
The way forward seems to be the construction of a new founding myth which contextualizes the survivors’ continuity from the previous decadent civilization, the current-day West. It’s not enough to say “Sodom was a bad place full of bad people” because then your kids will think “Hang on though, doesn’t that make us bad too?” The original founding myth of America was “England was a bad place, we escaped here because we’re the rare few good ones and the proof is that we overcame the struggles of the Atlantic Ocean, the frontier, and the war for independence.”
How would you describe the filter that selected you, oh reader, since we conceive of ourselves as the rare few good Westerners? Or maybe I should say the filter we expect will predict will select us, since nothing’s for sure yet. I’m thinking of Dutton’s theory as I write this, that de facto insanity is the new crucible of purifying selection, replacing child mortality. Could you describe this process in a way that a six-year-old child could understand? What’s the analogue to a tricorn hat? To those of you who can be bothered to think about these questions seriously: please resist the urge to refer to internet meme culture. It’s not real. A single solar flare would erase your Sonic OC community’s culture in its entirety.
I could tell a three year old “We fought the king of England with muskets because he was a bad guy” and we could play dress-up as bluecoats and redcoats for five minutes and the three year old would understand what it means to be an American forever. We gotta get it down to something that simple and concrete for the various refugias.
Just in case you didn’t notice, the title of this post is funny.
Aeoli Pera 
Actually, the solar flare thing is a good starting point. What culture would be left? We’d still have Christmas, for example.
“new founding myth which contextualizes the survivors’ continuity from the previous decadent civilization”
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/gettyimages-3316633-1579028570.jpg?crop=0.505xw:0.890xh;0.187xw,0.110xh&resize=480:*
THANK GOD WE SURVIVED THAT HELL OF THE Before Times!..I know what you mean but the electric satan offers no virtue it is however a very good calculator tho but that must transform into something real irl and “nah man just spend 4hours per day on that site not the cucked on/youtuber/podcast etc etc” is pretty moronic, I can unironically not answer this question online and why yes thats rather ironic
My new pickup line: “We must apply Wang to achieve cultural continuity.”
We must apply Wang to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
Glosoli, the reason your comment isn’t appearing is I’ve been spamming it.
Your link to the book review is the same as your link to the book.
You want a foundational myth and not an elaborate justification for existing? “People who like bad things wanted to destroy good things and we didn’t like that so we tried our best to keep what is good and shun what is bad. And that’s why you shouldn’t talk to Cinnamon Biscuit anymore. Yes, his name is funny.”
>How would you describe the filter that selected you
The filter was the choice between disgusting people + unjustifiable actions and kind people + reasonable, even if existence itself is a bit unreasonable, actions. The choice between wanting ugly things to prosper and wanting beautiful things to prosper. The choice between heart destroying systems and soul testing paradoxes. That’s the filter in my eyes. Yes, I’m aware the other side sees it in a similar way.
There’s also the perspective of will to power, of becoming as a pursuit in itself, where there are no moral judgements or any spiritual judgements made beyond what the will itself demands. There’s an entire system of thinking there that begins with that basic point and it ends with trying to break yourself free from any mental restraints you’re placed under. And by this I mean MM’s Red Dragon and Overman post.
The question of which side of the problem each person stands on is relative based on the grounding philosophy of the observer. If you believe in a universe of theoretically unmitigated progress, and that only select bad actors is what differentiates paradise from hell, or If you believe that the universe contains an entropic force that is built in to its fabric, and that people align themselves based off of personal interests while making no claim to anything supernatural, or that the universe is one created by a God and that your circumstance is the consequences of your sins, set the stage for what kinds of thinking and decisions you’ll make in life. These types of discussions don’t happen before someone is even a teenager, even if they’re vitally important.
I don’t have any data on what parenting methods and teaching methods work especially since I don’t have kids, and I can’t make educated assumptions on how other children developed based off of interacting with grown adults. My base assumption is child rearing should start with taking an interest in what your children are interested in and working with them on solving any problems they happen upon, and placing them in environments that would be beneficial to them, while also letting them making mistakes as being purely coddled won’t lead to a good end. Very vague.
Perhaps I don’t see the scope of what you’re asking. Convincing an ADULT of the same thing is much more difficult and that’s when I start to blackpill, and trying to raise a child in our current environment is also a major blackpill. But I don’t blackpill when establishing why we are different from those who wish to destroy us. I don’t get it. Do I have to read the 349 page book before I get what you’re talking about?
>Your link to the book review is the same as your link to the book.
Thanks for catching that, it’s fixed now.
> You want a foundational myth and not an elaborate justification for existing?
It’s not for me, but yes.
> “People who like bad things wanted to destroy good things and we didn’t like that so we tried our best to keep what is good and shun what is bad. And that’s why you shouldn’t talk to Cinnamon Biscuit anymore. Yes, his name is funny.”
That’s a decent start. I also heard Devon Stack recently use the term “the anti-whites” and that struck me as a good catch-all label. “Globalists” is a little too nebulous because bad faith actors could spin that to mean moon Nazis.
> There’s also the perspective of will to power, of becoming as a pursuit in itself, where there are no moral judgements or any spiritual judgements made beyond what the will itself demands.
I’m a Christian, so that which kills me also makes me stronger. But I’m a Christian because I was an egoist first (though I didn’t know to call it that).
> These types of discussions don’t happen before someone is even a teenager, even if they’re vitally important.
Yes they do, although maybe not in the modern day. In a normal society. You’ll see basic theology in the old Veggie Tales cartoons, and that was as recent as the 90s.
> I don’t have any data on what parenting methods and teaching methods work especially since I don’t have kids, and I can’t make educated assumptions on how other children developed based off of interacting with grown adults.
I’ll start taking mental notes to curate a list of resources on the subject, I needed to do that anyway.
> Do I have to read the 349 page book before I get what you’re talking about?
No, you just have to already know that the reason I bring it up is because I consider it my side job to make sure there’s at least one white Christian nation on the American continent in 200 years. A lot of implications follow from that.
>A lot of implications follow from that.
Thanks for clarifying. I thought it’d be difficult to give an accurate summary of what hasn’t yet come to pass, hence my confusion. But it’d be useful for your established goal and supreme accuracy wouldn’t matter much.
Whatever summarizes the basic beliefs of the enemy and instills in your children a hatred of paw-rubbing small hat rats would work.
>I’m a Christian, so that which kills me also makes me stronger. But I’m a Christian because I was an egoist first (though I didn’t know to call it that).
If you mean your baseline personality changed from were “I’m the s*** -> I ain’t s*** -> Jesus is Lord” sometime between 24-29, then I had a similar experience.
>That’s a decent start
Let’s break down its elements.
>People who like bad things
People who are dysgenic, short-sighted, or delusional have set up a system of deep deceptions that are hard to navigate through and terrible to wrestle with. There are external motivations, of equality and fairness, internal motivations that particular populations hold but not all universally hold, and then the ultimate function, which is establishing a dominance hierarchy based on a slave/master dichotomy. Niggers fight for their own self-interests, and they’re not the real enemy, their motivations and comprehensible and adaptive. Feminists are spiteful over not being men themselves, or in the case of soybeans then are predatory and are adopting the facade of innocence and repentance in order to convince others that they don’t think of the lamb as prey. Jews, similar in a way to the amish, have been historically selected based off of how much they hate western culture and by extension whites, and IQ. It’s in their blood, as otherwise if an individual found beauty in european culture then he would’ve become christians. So we can separate these people into three categories, those who act on short-term interests, those who are spiteful, and slave owners.
>we didn’t like that
The ‘we’ can be classified in a similar manner to the above. It’s a mirror image, except it’s eugenic. Meaning what is good and not good is entirely based off of utilitarianism, specifically the utility within a strategy that selects for a specific desirable phenotype.
So it’s
Long-term interests vs Short-term interests
Good vs Evil (as defined by long-term fitness)
Cultural tribalism vs Genetic tribalism
That is, we become chinese.
>so we tried our best to keep what is good and shun what is bad
We didn’t go on a jihad or crusade against evil since that requires an organized and motivated movement. Survival depended on out-living the system that wanted to destroy us.
>And that’s why you shouldn’t talk to Cinnamon Biscuit anymore
Shun dysgenic people as the energy required to fix them isn’t worth the effort, and infection is a real risk. It’s not a christian perspective, I did not establish a ground where the gospel is preached to the sick. That is not the mode of survival I thought about, that requires a healthy people to begin with.
tl;dr
The foundational myth is survival through outlasting predators. I don’t have the christian perspective. Aeoli could establish a better foundational myth, based off of the intentional self-sacrifice of genius-expressing phenotypes in order to force an environment in which geniuses are selected for. What I established is a form of despair.
I feel a bit sick. This is going to take a minute to accommodate.
Trying to find the counterfactual that best represents current reality and would also best represent the possible future is an exercise in itself, but not one that OP truly wants to explore. Establishing the boundaries of what the enemy is, what our allies are, what possible methods our allies used to protect themselves, and the methods used to destroy the allies, are the real questions. In order to create a foundational myth that a common man can easily intuit to be true, a simple, easy to say category that ideally is already in use is preferred for each distinction. Anti-white is useful, but that isn’t a method of the enemy, perhaps it’s the motivation but nothing else.
I’d reframe the focus into what were the methods used to destroy us and how to counteract them. Unfortunately I don’t have a concept of anything intricately political or economic since I really can’t set my mind on understanding the fundamental motives of each of these things beyond simple short term self interests. I’m slowly figuring out the basics of economy. I’m not a well read autist.
Userer’s would be a better name. Propose to a kid $1 so he can buy candy and tell him he needs to give you $1.50 in return, and if he accepts the proposal then that you expect him to pay you back within a week. A slightly more convoluted marshmallow test that a three year old would probably fall for always. However, the refusal of such an offer doesn’t automatically frame a person as an ally. Someone could refuse the offer because they’re intelligent enough to know they’re not going to be able to pay it back for one reason or another. However, someone is an usurer is always the enemy. If the kid calls you a jew, you win.
There is a moral distinction between people, and the function of such moral values is irrelevant to the proposed task.
Since moral values can be classified by whether it is natural or learned, and what is natural can be atomized into what motivates a person to make moral decisions, and that nature isn’t absolutely malleable, the question of what is learned becomes relevant. If it’s Christian values that is desired, then necessarily the foundational myth has to include elements of Christian faith. But it bears to keep in mind that while the current civilizational decline might share similarities between previous ones, it isn’t clarifying to base the foundational myth on a generalized problem with a generalized solution, ie “demons possessed our leaders and we rejected them, for we are good.”
It’s not useful to explore a paganistic framework, as the only paganistic framework still alive in a civilized country is Japan. You are not Japanese. There is no living tradition of paganism in the west, it’s all dead. An atheistic framework is dead in the water, as there is no epistemological reason for any action good or bad to begin with within that framework. An agnostic framework can be helpful, but it can’t answer anything truly essential. A framework that refuses to answer any epistemological question follows the same line of problems as an agnostic one.
This is to say, the realm of conflict between cultural forces rather than absolute genetic interests, as cultural memes can exist within any people as long as there’s someone in there smart enough to think of it, or carry it. This is not to say nature can be ignored, but instead treated as a more or less immutable part of a population, barring any change in genetics. Establishing a foundational myth for alchemists isn’t the proposed task.
I’m limited and this is the only answer I can provide given my current base of mental resources. I’ll read Wangutan’s book at some point, but I don’t think it’s valuable for me now. And by some point I naturally mean I’ll probably forget it. Unless someone tells me to think about this for the next couple of years I’ll move on to something I consider more salient, and requires less mental anguish to answer.
>You’ll see basic theology in the old Veggie Tales cartoons
You’re right.
>I’ll start taking mental notes to curate a list of resources on the subject, I needed to do that anyway.
Please do.
An important final note, people MUST deconstruct and deny the claims of the enemy. It’s not enough to simply hope they die off. The rational that formed modern problems won’t die with them. You can’t call someone cringe-nigger-pedo-gamma-sape faggot and expect him to change.
>It’s not useful to explore a paganistic framework, as the only paganistic framework still alive in a civilized country is Japan
I shouldn’t make claims to knowing things I don’t concretely know. This is a false statement.
tl;dr
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)
The non-convulated, not over-thought answer to a foundation myth is:
“We feared God and we fought until we could last no more, and only with faith and God’s love and mercy did we survive.”
That is, the problem isn’t one of an easily definable figurehead, as trannies, for example, aren’t necessarily anti-white. Delusion and prelest are deeper than whatever earthly mortal group that lords over us.
Prelest may be the perfect word for this, although when you’re talking to a 3yo you’d just say “crazy”.
What I have in my head so far is “The anti-whites went crazy and tried to burn the world down because they hoped it would kill us too and…something something.” An acceptable visual representation of the bad guys (for dress-up purposes) would be le happy merchant leading the Burger King kids’ club, and variations thereof with pink hair and stuff. That’s where online meme culture may be helpful.
That’s most of it.
Draw a picture book about a small, immature rat talking to various other rats, black rats being imported into his community and wrecking havoc or not contributing to anything. Some of them having dyed their fur and chopped off their tails, claiming they are freeing themselves of all oppressions. Some enslaved by debt doing menial work for eternity who have long ago fallen to despair. Others constantly trying to solve a puzzle that keeps getting added to, claiming they are trying to solve the problem. Finally in the end seeing one small rat with an oversized snout and a tiny hat laughing at all the other rats and explaining to him how he got all the other rats to suffer. When asked why, the rat will say, “because I hate them.”
The problem still remains how the tiny rat escapes it all. “something something”. I’m of the opinion that narrowing your scope to a single, or in my case four (I’m stretching myself very thin), community and trying your absolute best to see it flourish is the only thing a single man can do. I’m not a very political animal, there could be other solutions that I simply can’t see given my limitations. But still, that is my solution. Despise the man who locks away history and culture because it is “imperfect” or “obsolete”.
Some cultures like imageboard culture inevitably has the idea of impermanence built into it, some things can and will be forgotten and it’s part of the construct.
Preservation of culture requires an active construction of it. There is no frontier to run to, you have to carve one. Most of my efforts in the past year and a half has been towards that goal.
Modern man is atomized. We compete on the grounds that everyone is a nation to himself, an individual with no connections to a past. Such a people are born dead.
We, who loved life, survived a culture of death (heroic survivors of a death-cult)
We, who loved beauty, preserved it through a tyranny of ugliness (preservers of great art and the natural world vs. communist bloc tenement dwellers)
We, who loved truth, persevered through the storm of lies
We, who loved god, were delivered from satan’s clutches
Some simple narrative distillations. Can’t quite think of how to act them out in a simple, demonstrable manner.