People who snarkily use “the times are changing,” card to those who don’t see the supposed beauty of Utopia built upon a a bastardized sense of “equality” and “justice” seem to not have little regard for the past or future. It is very easy to be a modern day liberal, or a least support the social causes that is triumphed (women’s “rights”, gay “rights”, worker “rights”). Its complexity is not derived from thoughtful philosophical arguments, but by feeling. Unless one is a sociopath, or even an Aspie who has a hard time understanding emotions, it is not hard to understand them. What is hard is to understand why one would operate under such conditions 24/7. There are real life examples: The recent raise of minimum wage (picket signs offer no argument or salient points, just slogans and yelling faces); the tiring narrative that women are paid less because they are women (see: Patricia Arquette’s Oscar speech) and that women are faced with sexism (see: ACLU report on hiring practices in America’s movie industry, various actors & female directors complaining about sexism while offering no concrete examples or names); the emotional appeal to same-sex “marriage” (see: United States, Ireland); false campus rape reports (see: Rolling Stone U. Virginia report, Lena Dunham) to the ridiculous (see: Columbia U. mattress girl); fake “hate crimes” against homosexuals (see: Matt Shephard case, “hate tip” receipt for lesbian waitress); supposed sexism in the video game word (see: Gamer Gate); to the internet social activists (see: tumblr SJWs).

All of what is listed above, when presented by the complainers, are represented in black & white faces, which is ironic because these are the same people who, when asked about life and death – when it’s their turn to become philosophical and existential, turn to sayings, “Life is really complex, ” to “there’s so much greyness – it’s not all black & white like what your mom and pop tells you, or what your church tells you.” They come across as heavily narcissistic and self-involved people. They talk about “strength” and “courage” to be live authentic lives (#BeTrue) yet they get intimidated by so-called micro-aggressions (see: any American college or university).

A little personal story. As my mom and I waited for choir practice to begin, one of the choir members leaned towards me and said, as we waited in silence for the 7PM Polish mass to end, “It’s sad that this will all gone in a generation.” She was talking to the specific mass occurring (apparently it wasn’t a normal mass). A majority of the attendees were older than 40, with only a few (Polish) kids in the pews. There couldn’t have been no more than sixty people attending this particular mass. As I reflected on what she said, I could not help but think that modernism has no respect for tradition; modernism holds tradition in contempt and views it as an archaic, oppressive and meaningless routine. What has modernism left me? Not much, if anything of true substance. What has my heritage given me? Much more than modernism has ever produced. Many of my more conservative friend are getting married and having kids. Many of their more “modern” peers don’t marry and probably have one kid. If you ask my generation today what is their spiritual/religious life like, at best they’ll say “I’m spiritual.” Follow around an L.A. based photographer or anyone established in the entertainment world, and you’d swear that once you meet one “can’t-help-be-myself” type you have met all of them.

Modernism can’t get its story straight either. Do you want to change the system or “let other groups in”? Because when you “let other groups in” and want to psychologically change an opposing group’s idea of “equality” you’re changing it. It is not in its original or previous form. I see this when it comes to supporters o same-sex “marriage.” Some say that they don’t want to change marriage, but to just make those “denied” (in quotes because they were actually never denied) “rights” (in quotes because these “rights” aren’t actually rights) equality under law. Some supporters think that marriage is a meaningless institution and that anyone, regardless of sex and party number, should be granted “marriage.” So we have one group that allowing two people of the same-sex won’t change marriage itself, but make it better and make it richer; another saying that marriage licenses should be given to two people regardless of the sex of their significant other and to more than a party of two.

As mentioned earlier, modernism thinks of itself as truly unique. They have this odd idea of the individual – that they are (the modernists) vanguard of the “true self” against Neanderthals and the “squares.” In short, they want their cake and eat it too. Just don’t say “no” or else they’ll throw a tantrum and cry “Good As You!”

I do think though, in the event of a catastrophe that many predict within this century, what we might call ‘the natural selection of disaster’ will have weeded out many of the most troubling adherents of Liberalism.

Remember that in Leipzig during the 20th century, in 1913 everybody was a monarchist, in 1927 everybody was a democrat, in 1935 everybody was a Nazi, in 1967 everybody was a Communist, and in 1995 everybody was a democrat again. American occupation soldiers noted that a few years after the war, not only could they not find anybody who had ever been a Nazi, they couldn’t find anybody who had even *known* anybody who had been a Nazi – and the Germans who they talked to seemed to be saying this in all sincerity. The mind is a strange thing… it creates its own reality. “The Nuremberg Rally? Oh, yes, I was there – but I wasn’t a Nazi mind you, I just went out of curiosity.”

A few years after the king returns, you won’t be able to find anybody who even knows anybody who ever supported gay marriage.

I have been skeptical of the idea on the right that we could just change the system we have currently and force the people of the West to live in a Reactionary way. Even if you could install an absolute monarch by a coup, it just wouldn’t work. The people have to come to think like Reactionaries, and the only way they do that is by suffering. Having institutions of influence is nice, but it’s unlikely to turn the culture in any beneficial direction at large.

Entropic forces are bringing this age to an end. I’d say the best we can do is prepare structures to dominate the blasted landscape it will leave behind, and hope not too many (or preferably maybe no) nuclear weapons go off. The struggle will not be difficult because we have such monumental foes to conquer, but because there are going to be rapid shifts in geopolitics on a scale not before reckoned with, and they are exceedingly hard to predict.

The left dreams of ‘maximum leftism’ or the ‘Modern Singularity’ whereupon his utopia is achieved, however like a centrifuge, he never reaches this societal speed of light, instead his craft begins to break up due to the forces present. Really, it’s just a matter of time.