Ascending the Tower – Episode II, Part 1: Modernity is virtual reality

This week, we’re joined by AntiDem for a discussion on modernity for part 1 of Episode II of Ascending the Tower.

Brought to you by Surviving Babel and Nick B. Steves, Ascending the Tower is a podcast distributed by Social Matter and represents the latest project of the Hestia Society. Please leave feedback in the comments, and if you’d like to get in touch with Surviving Babel, you can find him at:

Related Show Links:

Opening Song –

Closing Song – :


If you are interested in sponsoring Ascending the Tower, e-mail me at Surviving Babel at gmail dot com. Sponsorships start at $10 an episode, and all proceeds will either go back into the podcast or provide some compensation for your most grateful host. You can purchase a mention or short message, or you can choose to sponsor the Out of Left Field question or even an entire episode.

Subscribe to

Ascending the Tower

Or subscribe with your favorite app by using the address below

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. Unless Virtual Reality can be translated to True Reality.

  2. The problem with State Churches is that they become lazy monopolies. And aren’t as effective then when they are competing with other religions.

  3. I love the anime music bump. The show came out great!

  4. Another great podcast. I wouldn’t worry too much about doxing at this point. Apart from some intraparty fighting within the Manosphere, the Reactionary side of the net is still too deep under the radar for most libtards to initiate doxfests.

    I would disagree about comment sections. By and large, a lot of substantive Reactionary discussion goes on there, and its a good gauge of the movement’s increasing popularity, looking at how many comments there are on say, Radish articles and such.

    1. I am torn between the two opinions. Excellent commentary sections have evolved at xenosystems and Jim’s.

  5. New WPA programs would solve nothing. They dindu nuffin at the time, other than divert a possible revolution by make-work programs and try-hard nonsense. The Second War ended “The Depression,” which is the default mode of the underclass in corporate capitalism absent a major collective brainwashing project. Now we have TV and video games that divert people from engaging in any action. We have 1/5th of the population on psychiatric drugs. We live in the largest “depression” imaginable right now with 1/3rd of the population out of the work force.

    This general low portion of the population is irrelevant to any philo-political discussion, in the sense that they have no need other than food/drugs. It is odd that you seem concerned with them. The discussion is a matter of what to do with them. This is the big cherry of the leftists. They think they can “Occupy” with this defunct class whenever they want. The question ought to be how to disenfranchise them all permanently and elevate the political discussion to matters of recovery, reasserting our dignity, and entering space as we did 50 years ago.

    If we’re just talking about how to shut-up some uppity feminist that found a ghetto to ride, we may as well be one of them. The goal is to exclude and eliminate them from the national conversation. If that is impossible, then the goal ought to be how to remove ourselves from them.

    1. Genuine concern for the true best interests of the lower classes is the mark of aristocracy. Also a mark of humanity. Obviously giving them political voice is not in their best interests.

    2. Many of the social problems of the ghetto – drugs, crime, gang membership, casual sex leading to astronomical rates of bastardy – can, I believe, be traced back in no small part to boredom and lack of purpose. By making a leisure class of that segment of society with the highest time preference and the least ability to make healthy choices for themselves, we’ve provided them with an optimal scenario for self-destruction. You may think that’s all fine and dandy, but their self-destruction is not taking place in a vacuum – it does affect the people (and groups of people) around them as well.

      So yes, they likely *would* be make-work programs. But that’s more or less the point – find something for the poor to do other than to self-destruct in a way that makes life hell for everyone around them. Give them tasks that provide them with purpose and activity – any activity – that fills their waking hours with something other than lurking menacingly on streetcorners, drinking cheap malt liquor, and popping out babies that you and I will have to pay for.

      1. Finally got around to listening to these.

        Anyway, I’m not sure the government can synthesize purpose. Make-work isn’t purpose in say, Glorious Britannia, where it is in practice. The people feel the workfare they are doing is an obstacle to getting their government stipend. They see no purpose in their work because it is not providing for anything they care about. The same goes for the plethora of nihilistic young men over here in America who do have McJobs, but still lack purpose (this is the majority of those living in black communities today by the way).

        It can’t just be work. It has to be work that is connected in some way to building something they value. They must be building their own communities; providing for their own families. If they lack those and any hope of getting those, they are doomed.

        I lean more toward the solution of giving gangs sovereignty over their own communities and letting what emerges from the chaos emerge. The problem with this is that a lot of innocent people would suffer in the process. I won’t pretend to have a solution personally.

        1. The government qua bureaucratic systems cannot well synthesize purpose. But natural institutions of a society working each in its own sphere symbiotically (as Gnon we think intends) can probably do a much better job.

          A big part of “provide incentives” which was left unadressed by this podcast was: “Get rid of perverse ones” and “Don’t step on good ones that are already there”. The unintended consequences of purposeful government action tend to swamp the benefits. Government relief systems (worked for small values of “work”) during the Great Depression, but the Depression was only “Great” because of the actions taken by the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations which turned an ordinary run-of-the-mill bank panic into a trans-national crisis. If food on a table depends on some banker’s well-being 1000 miles away, then your system is fragile. Nature tends strongly to conspire against that. It takes active human intervention to make systems that have such failure modes.

Comments are closed.