Return of the Tribal Warrior

Taking Sides in the Battle of the West.

A conservative is simply a person who has taken his own side. He does what every human being (outside the past century), indeed every living organism has done for the past billion years. Defended himself, his kin, his tribe, and his civilization. Acting in accordance with the laws of nature.

He may be an intellectual giant or a primitive brute, but his is not an academic endeavor. Rather he is tied directly to the realities of biology. He may or may not be an observer of science, but he actively participates in it. He is a part of it.

The conservative is a natural man.

But not an animal. The conservative recognizes that there are still animals, and animal instincts among us, and that these are best tamed or restrained by tradition, moral code, and law. For this he is sometimes called authoritarian. But he does not wish to rule over others with these institutions, but rather he wishes to avoid a return to the rule of the jungle.

The conservative values the civilization bequeathed to him by his ancestors, and wishes to conserve it, lest he be forced to win it again. Though the conservative values peace and order above all, at heart he remains as his ancestors back to the beginning of humanity: a tribal warrior.

————————-

By contrast the leftist is a person who has taken his opponents side, or at least the opponents of his own civilization. He wants to tear it all down so he may rule over the ashes, which he insists will be a new utopia.

He is anti-tribal, particularly of his own, who he rejects in-turn as that tribe has rejected him. He may have indeed been treated unfairly, but he seeks not justice, not parity, or recognition, but rather retribution. Revenge. He does not wish to rid the world of oppression, but rather to become the oppressor.

The leftist is inevitably a statist, even the anarchists among them, because the leftist is inevitably a weakling. His arguments do not persuade, and his violence is more like performance art, a show for his own ego. And so he seeks the levers of state power to enforce his vision.

The leftist is a termite, rotting civilization from within, and with very nearly the same communication skills. One can not reason with a termite. And one cannot reason with a leftist, because they use language not to communicate, but rather to deceive and control.

And as with houses, there is only one way to rid a civilization of termites.

—————————-

And then there is the confused mess of the centrist, the classical liberal, even dare I say it, the libertarian. Almost always a person of high intellect, or at least will deem himself so. The liberal rejects the biological man, because the liberal has a much better idea: the use of pure reason to solve all that ails humanity.

I must admit it has its appeal. I’m certainly not opposed to reason. I will even admit that the liberal vision of the world is vastly superior to either the conservative or leftist vision. But unfortunately, as Thomas Sowell once put it, "the world is not that way."

The liberal project, the enlightenment even, has been a quest for universal human values, for the definition of “natural rights" which do not exist anywhere in nature. Sometimes expressed as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Few in the West are opposed to these supposedly “natural rights,” but the liberal gives them magical powers and presumes universal acceptance. Consider the definition:

"Natural rights are fundamental rights that are considered universal and inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away or denied by any government or authority.”

See any problem with that? How about the word “cannot?” Is it true that the government CANNOT deprive a person of their life? Their liberty? Their pursuit of happiness?

If recent history has shown us anything with COVID lockdowns, coercive medical treatments, January 6th, censorship, taxation, regulation, cultural replacement, employment outsourcing, not to mention outright murder at places like Ruby Ridge and Waco.

The idea of CANNOT is clearly laughable.

The government can and does intrude upon these supposed inalienable rights on a continuous basis, and very nearly without consequence. Go ahead and tell me they “ought not to” and I will agree, but tell me that they “CANNOT” and I will call you a fool.

But the liberal takes this fiction yet a step further, and applies it to all mankind, whether the rest of mankind has ever heard of those rights, or outright rejects them. And many do. Many of our fellow humans follow something closer to the rule of the jungle than anything approaching Western enlightenment.

And they like it.

But the liberal cannot accept that. He sees the world as a reflection of himself, that “we” are all the same, just like him. If only the ignorant could be made to hear his wise arguments, kind heart, and eminently logical solutions all would be solved. He is supported in this notion by a coterie of similarly wise omniscient beings.

Take it from the great liberal mirror admirer Barack Obama, “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."

The liberal is a man of great ego, great ideas, of great ideals, like a floating head in a glass jar. Completely detached from reality. He believes that he himself is the solution simply because he thinks it so.

The liberal is not a natural man. He exists somewhere outside nature, somewhere in Plato's realm of the forms.

Unlike the conservative who embraces his own tribe, unlike the leftist who rejects tribalism, the liberal insists that humanity is one tribe. A giant Benetton catalog of interchangeable models who would get along fine if they would just adopt the wise liberals universal values.

But they don't.

They don't want to. The inhabitants of the illiberal world think the liberal is an idiot. Someone to be taken advantage of. And so much to his confusion, the liberal’s great experiments inevitably result in chaos, destruction, and inter-civilizational conflict.

For these people of the world are not liberals, they do not believe in universal natural rights, they prefer their own tribe, they choose their own side, they are in a word: conservative. However they are not interested in conserving your culture, but rather their own.

And no amount of lecturing over John Locke or Murray Rothbard or the Constitution or the Ten Commandments is going to change that.

And so we are at an crossroads.

While conservatives may seek to conserve classically liberal values, the classical liberal enables the left to destroy what remains of those values, all the while protesting that he is the true guardian of civilization.

Bizarre Hate Triangle.

The reality for conservatives is that there is little left to conserve. And so that term must be rejected, if not in usage then in behavior. The time has come for "the reactionary," the un-doer of the revolution, the return of the tribal warrior.

Much of the fuss and fear one hears from academia, from media, and classical liberal commentators is driven by fear of the tribal warriors return. And rightfully so, for he is to be feared.

But the great liberal experiment of the past 100 years has been a parade of civilization destroying disaster. A slow walk into a new dark age of technocratic overlords ruling over multicultural serfs. It must be undone.

The West inches ever closer to the final question, “To be or not to be?”

And for the tribal warrior there is only one acceptable answer, “To be.”

And though I prefer peaceful means, in much the same way that I prefer natural rights, unfortunately it turns out that the world “is simply not that way."

And so the future I prefer will require almost unfathomable violence.

The return of the tribal warrior.

Else the West is, “Not to be.”