On to Restoration!

Welcome to On to Restoration!, the center on the web for counterrevolutionaries, restorationists, and the unreconstructed. We include reflections on what it’s about and links to discussions, projects and resources. You may also listen to a spoken introduction to our site (requiring RealPlayer).

What is "restoration"?

Bringing back what has been lost, when what has been lost is necessary to a fully human life.

What has been lost that is so important?

Recognition that what we can see here and now is not self-sufficient, that at the center of things is something that goes beyond the merely human, that we live by what is transcendent.

What does that have to do with anything?

What doesn’t it have to do with? The whole of life depends on what man and the world are.

So get to the point.

The point is that today’s public order, the one all respectable public institutions and authorities support, is antihuman because it denies fundamental aspects of human nature. It tells us that safety, comfort, and the satisfaction of desire are the point of life; that increasing and equalizing such things is the noblest goal conceivable; that love, loyalty and sacrifice are personal tastes like any other. Such a view cannot last or long remain tolerable. It must and will change.

Why so combative?

Whoever fails to toe the line liberal sectarians draw is now defined as an extremist and bigot, if you want to discuss things with the world you have to use the world’s language. Rather than argue the point it is better to accept that we are extremists or whatever and get on with the substance.

And that substance is …

  • The traditional American polity, rooted in ordinary experience and in Greece, Rome, Jerusalem and the European Middle Ages, has disappeared, destroyed by the technological and egalitarian hedonism of the modern outlook in general and liberal thought in particular.
  • The liberal and technocratic drive for absolute dominion has resulted in a culture war in which the victors are imposing a suffocating political correctness in the guise of tolerance. Our Culture Wars—Discussion and Resources, which includes links to other resources, and our essays on "The Tyranny of Liberalism", "PC and the Crisis of Liberalism", "Liberalism: Ideal and Reality", and "Liberal Tolerance" describe the process and its consequences.
  • The new order makes "inclusiveness", which destroys the distinctions and ways of thought that moral and social order require, the supreme moral principle. Our Anti-Inclusiveness FAQ, with links to resources, and our essay on "Vindicating Stereotypes and Discrimination" may help clarify the issues.
  • In particular, attempts to abolish gender and traditional sexual morality in the interests of liberal monism have led to social and moral catastrophe by radically disordering the most fundamental human institutions and relationships. For discussion, see our page on Anti-Feminism—Discussion and Resources and our Sexual Morality FAQ, including resources.
  • The attempt to abolish ethnicity under the banner of anti-racism has also been catastrophic, because it results in the abolition of all cultural particularity and therefore the very possibility of standards other than money and power. Our essays on "Freedom, Discrimination and Culture" and "Anti-racism" lay out the problems as we see them.

So what do you propose to do about it?

A fundamental part of the answer is restoration of contact with tradition and the transcendent. Our Conservatism FAQ, “Understanding Tradition and Conservatism”, and “Radical Traditionalism and the New World Order” point to some of the issues and possibilities. We are not the first to call for restoration, and our Traditionalist Conservatism Page includes a large collection of links suggesting a variety of approaches.

The problems are deeply rooted, and have even affected conceptions of what is rational. Some new conception of rationality, or reversion to older and broader conceptions, is therefore necessary. In opposition to technocratic tyranny, the transcendent order known through tradition must somehow be combined with freedom.

For us the two necessary poles of traditional order and freedom are symbolized by Confucius and the Icelandic sagas. Our Questions and Answers on the Establishment of Religion consider some of the institutional issues, while our essay Liberalism, Tradition and the Church and our lecture Awakening from reason’s sleep are attempts at a comprehensive treatment. Others no doubt have their own way of articulating the situation; those caught in the modern world can only explore the possibilities and do their best.

Lots of luck. You’ll need it.

The situation looks bad, but if we’re right about human life we’ll win in the end because the liberal order is antihuman and will not last. Of course, the Restoration will no doubt be very different from the Ancien Regime, and from our standpoint may look less appealing. Our essays on "Ibn Khaldun and Our Age" and "The Amish, David Koresh, and a Newer World Order" suggest some of the possibilities. Still, one can try to live well oneself while laying a general groundwork for a better world; consider, for example, our page on human rights. Life can be hard, but it is full of unexpected turns, and while it remains there is hope.

So if I’m interested, what do I do?

Check out the links on this page, look at our resource lists, and join our forum. Educate yourself, and confront the hegemons wherever you can. Such things are just a beginning, though. The point is to change your life and the world!

And in the meantime,

The Battle Goes On!

For continuing coverage, see our weblog, Turnabout.

6 thoughts on “On to Restoration!”

  1. The problem we are confronted

    The problem we are confronted with eludes the myopic vision of a heterogeneous assortment of political moralists…We are in truth, dealing with the life cycle of a ‘vital’ organism, a culture which is witnessing a crisis, a rite of passage which lies far beyond the trite and superficial categories of good and evil; for Caesar and the Masses are reciprocal proofs locked in a symbiotic embrace, a ‘totentanz’ of decadence.
    Requiem Pour Un Empire

  2. It seems to me that

    It seems to me that knowing just where you are in the life cycle of the world organism or whatever it is, and what effects your actions will or won’t have, is getting rather ahead of yourself. Where could you stand to get such a perspective? The owl of Minerva flies only at dusk, after all — you can’t know what’s happened until it’s over.

    I also don’t understand comprehensive complaints about “moralists.” To criticize or propose anything whatever is to say some ways of thinking and acting are more worth choosing and so better than others, and to propose following the better way is to be a moralist of some sort.

  3. 1. I don’t know if

    1. I don’t know if there are paleoconservatives in Latin America. I know next to nothing about the political scene there.

    2. I also know next to nothing about Franco or the Phalange. I am told was a great centralizer and suppresser of regional identities, which sounds bad from my point of view, but if someone told me he was actually a great supporter of those things, or a great murderer or great humanitarian or great numismatist, I wouldn’t know how to refute any of them.

    3. Do I distinguish traditionalists and paleoconservatives somewhere? The two terms are somewhat vague. The former is I think broader and describes a general type of philosophy while the latter refers more to a specific movement and group of people.

  4. 2. Franco was close to

    2. Franco was close to the Old Traditional Right whereas the Phalange were Spanish fascists and more akin to the European New Right. They collectively are now (maybe then?) known as the Nationalists. They fought together in the Spanish Civil War against the Leftist Republicans. I believe Franco had the Catholic Church on his side. Other than one incident in which a few ignorant Phalangists planted a bomb against some Francoists, both groups worked together succesfully to defeat the Leftists and build a country headed by Franco.

    It is true that Franco believed in the modern nation-state, and so he tried to hold the country together and suppress any internal independence movements in certain regions, such as the Basque region. But from the American perspective, this isn’t too significant considering the fact that Spain is about the size of Washington state and Oregon. It would be like holding two medium-sized states together.

    My own personal notes from my study of Franco and the Spanish Civil War are available on-line:


  5. Thanks to engelberth and Francoist

    Thanks to engelberth and Francoist for their comments.

    The kinds of conservatism engelberth mentions can be distinguished. There’s also a lot of overlap. I’d say for example that paleoconservatism is not at all the same as the religious right or pro-life movement even though most paleocons are anti-abortion and religious or sympathetic to religion. Paleoconservatism is a smallish movement mostly relating to the doings of a particular group of intellectuals while the religious right and pro-life movements are mass tendencies. Sam Francis is a paleoconservative, for example, but in his writings anyway he’s mostly an analyst of power and certainly no advocate of the religious right. I have no idea what his views on abortion are.

    I agree I should know more about the 20th c. Latin and Latin American Right. Nicols Gmez Dvila for example is a very distinguished writer. I am sure there are others. And I don’t doubt that there are important lessons to be drawn from events in Spain.

Comments are closed.