Those on the traditionalist or genuine right have a propensity to decry certain population segments, usually those of racial or ethnic minority groups, as parasitical. They will claim that those of immigrant stock arrive on our shores, and soon thereafter enrol themselves in government assistance programs which subsidize or fully sustain their habitation in Western countries. Furthermore, in the realm of culture and society, it is claimed that they are able to benefit from Western permissiveness and tolerance, and while Western/European cultures will largely accept and even celebrate the culture of the foreigner, the foreigner is less inclined to do the same for ours (and that has been especially seen with those of the Islamic faith), and will instead attempt to impose their cultural and religious values upon the nations that embrace them. Now the term “parasite” and its use to describe population groups is somewhat controversial given certain mid-century associations, alas as a term describing particular groups and their behaviour, it is appropriate. Furthermore, I do not blame non-Western immigrants for behaving in a such a detrimental manner. To them, our nations are evil due to Europe’s traditional religious affiliations and our history of colonization, slavery, and so on. To them we are weak and without identity, and our governments are more than willing to affirm them in these beliefs, as they are granted privileges and status that native Westerners are not afforded. We may see these behaviours as dishonourable, which they are, but to them our nations exist to be looted and reformed in accordance to their needs. Yet the conduct and honour of the foreigner is between them, the state, and God, and if our state is unwilling to penalize such antisocial behaviour I am not going to be able to apply enough social pressure to make those communities amend their ways. As for God, He will act and judge in accordance to the virtues and sins of a people.
The conduct of the foreigner morally speaking is of little concern to me. I have enough sins to combat in myself and to condemn in my own nation. I do not expect foreigners to perpetuate my culture, values, religion, or morality, and thus when they fail to do this either due to inability or hostility, I will not take offence. Such foreigners should not be permitted to live in Western lands, but for the time being they do and will do so for the foreseeable future. Given the current state of Western culture and leadership, there are many on the right who oppose the fruits of modernity, and some even look to the foreigner as inspiration or ally. Of course, such alliances are unwise,1 but they are a testament to how odious modernism and liberalism are, and that the West of today is not a direct continuation of the West as it once was and should be. Of course, the foreigner who hates the modern West would likewise hate the old Christendom as well, except in Christendom the foreigner would not be permitted to parasitize and subvert the host nation. Given the similar outlook of the foreigner to the rightist, the question is asked: if it is the responsibility of the nation to perpetuate a discrete culture and thus contribute to society, are traditionalists parasitical for practicing and espousing a culture antithetical to their society as it is currently organized whilst still benefiting from what society and the state provide? If we benefit from what society offers us, from the values it promulgates, it seems hypocritical to then establish ourselves as enemies of these values, our rulers, and by extension our fellow citizens/subjects.
It is common to hear from those on the right that traditionalists should endeavour to create parallel societies and economies, that we are to find those of similar views as us and create self-sufficient and resilient communities. As it is impossible for an individual or single family to provide for all their needs, community is necessary for economic, physiological, and spiritual soundness. Thus, we should seek support from and support those who share our loyalties as opposed to a system that seeks our dissolution. Yet, in extricating ourselves from the voluntary facets of our Modern culture, or those facets which we oppose, we still contribute to the broader culture which we oppose, and in regards to governmental and social services we still benefit. Thus, we are profiting from Modernity whilst breaking society’s expectation that we will perpetuate that culture in our own lives.
The Ancient Greeks understood that the household is the training ground to be a good citizen. In contemporary democracies, there exists no formalized social hierarchy and all are deemed both political and cultural standard-bearers. In traditional societies, it was society’s elite that would bear and perpetuate culture, as they had both the resources, time, and ability to pursue fields that elevated their given culture, nation, and civilization. This high culture was something which the lower classes could aspire to, something which could enrich and uplift them, but even if such things were beyond them these achievements in culture becomes that which defines a nation or race at its most advanced level. Alas, in Modernity, art and culture is manufactured not in the pursuit of perfection or Truth but as banal entertainment meant to briefly occupy the citizenry so that they are, for a time, able to subdue the listlessness they feel as a result of living in a spiritually dead plastic culture that seeks to justify the individual where he is instead of uplifting him. Yet this is the culture in the Modern West and this is the culture we are expected to propagate if we are to be good citizens. This is why Star Wars is so prevalent in political discourse, be it leftists online comparing their opposition to Vader, Justin Trudeau dressing up as a Jedi some years ago, Ronald Reagan invoking the franchise in relation to the USSR, or just this year when the White House posted an online image of President Donald Trump with a lightsaber. Modern popular culture and politics are not disconnected, but we already knew this from how the United States government promoted and used jazz to discourage classical music domestically and to subvert European culture and identity during the War and post-War years. Likewise, it was the CIA and American government which promoted “modern art” in a bid to likewise subvert the Soviet Union, which still retained a classical appreciation of aesthetics.
It has been claimed that given the immorality of the Modern system, we, like the immigrant, should exploit the social services provided for by the state and use these gains to both our personal and ideological profit. There are also those who operate schemes, wherein they will “buy” expensive goods from a retailer and then return it before the warranty expires only then to “buy” the same or similar good again and repeat the process. If we oppose modernity and “the system” as a whole, such acts would seem to be justifiable acts of resistance. Yet these actions are not honourable, and if we are not working/fighting for a future in which honour is valued, the struggle for Western Civilization is forfeit. Behaving like a Third Worlder even if it is to our short-term benefit will only result in the West becoming indistinguishable from the Third World, which is seemingly what those who rule over want for us. As society heterogenizes, the societal expectations decline. In Great Britain, there are now plans to issue extensive fines to passengers of public transportation who play music too loudly. To one degree or another, inconsiderate passengers have always been an issue; however, as British cities are ever more populated with Third Worlders, Third World behaviours become more prevalent (even sometimes being adopted by natives) and thus new laws2 are issued which penalize and chastise all.
What is owed to a society which seeks to contract the things derived from reason? In so defying reason, the state imperils the good and we the citizens are cut off from it. Those who lead in a political and cultural sense are the standard bearers of a way of being, but alas this way of being is deleterious to living historically; in accordance to the faith, values, and principals that have universally defined human existence for some 6000-10000 years. Yet whilst being an existential enemy, the liberal democratic system sustains us, normatively inflicting wounds so minute that they are only truly effective against those who were already inclined towards modernity in the first place. To the traditionalist the state is subsidizing its own destruction, for in sustaining us we ensure that our beliefs will be retained, sustained, and perpetuated unto future generations. But does this make us parasites, no better than the Muslim who seeks to use the “generosity” of the state to finance the future caliphate of his desires? In cutting ourselves off from the culture and thus not propagating it through our descendants, to our enemies we are parasites. This in part is probably why those on the right are often popularly presented as uneducated, antisocial, and uninspiring, because these traits are associated with poverty, welfare use, and dysgenics, traits which society subsidizes and seeks in time to expunge. To the state, if we do not perpetuate it, and those things like culture which in turn perpetuate it, (as I especially do not given my stance on voting3) then we are its enemies, regardless of how honourable and law abiding we may be. We must live in the time we have been placed and in accordance to its expectation and norms. If we are to show dishonour to that which does not expect or demand honour, we neither uplift ourselves, our society, or the future society we seek to create. If our principals are True, they will make us the best representatives of our society, a spiritual elite. This is not something we all are, most or many are called to, but regardless of our capabilities this is something we should still seek to aspire towards. A serf who aspires to the virtues of nobility does not betray or dishonour his station, but rather uplifts it. Neither does he dishonour the lord, but instead demands/encourages him to amend his ways and to live in accordance to the station God has positioned of him.
1https://godkingandnation.wordpress.com/2024/09/04/do-not-tempt-god/
2Laws which can be expanded upon in the future or used for purpose they were not originally intended for.
3https://godkingandnation.wordpress.com/2021/08/14/why-i-will-never-vote-again-and-why-you-shouldnt-either/