Conservative Revolution: Reflections on “Men Among the Ruins”

I have recently been reading Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist by the Italian philosopher, Julius Evola, and have myself been reflecting on some of the concepts expressed in the book, particularly with regards to authority and the nature of the ‘nation’ and the ‘state’. I wish to explore what it means to be a member of each group and in what context the individual is required to identify with the collective. I also want to elaborate on the nature of institutions that may be functional in their purpose, but prove to be dysfunctional due to corruption and lack of direction from above. The main difference between society as viewed from a Traditionalist perspective, as opposed to ‘progressive’, is that there is seen to be a need to preserve what works and to base institutions and societal roles on a spiritual basis rather than on the notion of utopianism and goals founded on material concerns. It is for this reason that confusion may arise with regards to what the purpose of each component of society is for and how they are meant to interact with the individual and serve the nation as a whole. I also wish to outline the problems we face because our society lacks a spiritual foundation and some suggestions for how to remedy this, with reference to Evola’s book.

First of all, let us define what is meant by ‘nation’ and ‘state’. As far as I am concerned, the nation is an organic entity which is based on shared blood and soil, an association between a folk and the homeland which they inhabit. One can be born into a nation and have no further requirement than to continue to uphold the traditions and well-being of the nation through producing offspring and co-operating with other members of the same nation, as there is a shared interest based on similarity of values and principles. The nation corresponds to the feminine principle and comes out of our connection to the Earth and Nature, which is expressed through culture. The state, on the other hand, is defined by Evola in terms of the männerbund, a Teutonic concept related to the Latin term comitatus, or a ‘warband’ in which a man pledges allegiance to a liege lord. This forms the basis of the state, and has more to do with the idea of ‘all for one and one for all’, which is rooted in the masculine principle and the need for heroism from those who participate in it. To contrast it with the nation, of which the customs and folklore are traditionally held by the women of a nation, the state exists to form the protection of the nation and to provide direction for the society as a whole.

Therefore, Evola relates the formation of the state to that of an ‘Order’, or of a society of men which is entrusted to hold and wield power for the sake of allowing the spiritual development of the individuals within its ranks. This is the main difference between the state and the nation in a functional sense; the nation requires the collective to act as one entity, while the ‘Order’ which forms the basis of the state is made up of men who can excel as individuals in their own capacity, though they follow the guidance of their superiors in order to ascend the hierarchy and to develop spiritually. Thus, while hierarchy is necessary to maintaining a cohesive and functional society, it is dependent upon the law of reciprocation and on the obligations between a lord and his follower. An example of this in a historical context would be the clan system in the Scottish Highlands. While each clansman was obliged to obey his chieftain as part of his warband, these requirements were contingent on the agreed upon contracts and the chieftain was not seen as superior to the clansman in a literal sense, as they were both of the same kin and therefore part of the same ‘nation’ or tribe. Thus, the ‘Order’ existed within a nation to act as a guiding force and to protect the tribe or clan through either military or spiritual means, though both aspects were usually present. Each clansman was expected to excel both in his own capacity and also alongside his brothers-in-arms.

Why this structure is missing in Modern society is due to the fact that it has no basis in spirituality and therefore is driven by material motives. It is not, as Evola says, “directed from above” (that is, the cosmic and divine plan of the Creator), but rather “from below” (the selfish and egoistic needs of the individual). It is this deference to the divine that pushes Traditionalism as a philosophy beyond the narrow confines of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’, which both find their political expressions in liberalism and socialism respectively. After the merchants took control of society from the medieval warlords who became indebted to them, the West lost its spiritual centre and devolved into a state whereby individual whims and desires formed the motives behind political action.

Instead of being rooted in either valour or wisdom, the desire for wealth and material comfort dominated the actions of the Western nations and, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, formed the social class which became known as the bourgeoisie; a way of living which was loathed by Evola for its rejection of heroism in favour of liberal values. Industrial society also gave rise to the proletariat, who consisted of the have-nots and underlings of such a materialistic society and eventually provided the forces of Marxism with their footsoldiers. It is these conditions of dysfunctional and conflictive tendencies which have given rise to a confused and muddled mob of consumer slaves, whose sole purpose in life seems to be to satiate as many desires as possible before death and to strive for conditions in which struggle is absent and definition and distinction lose meaning.

It is for this reason that the state has morphed from a paternalistic and protective force into one which routinely abuses and infantilizes its subject population for the sake of maintaining control. This is achieved through collaboration with corporations to provide distractions in the form of mass media, while at the same time applying censorship and suppression or manipulation of information in order to maintain the structure that already exists. This, however, is a dangerous method, for the state can only maintain itself through being a dynamic and spiritually strong entity; as opposed to a cancerous bureaucracy which makes life more difficult, not in the sense of comfort, but in terms of allowing both the individual and the collective to achieve their full potential.

Subsidizing certain businesses over others and allowing regulation to run rampant only strangulate the economy of a nation and make it difficult for private enterprise to flourish without government support. Though I am not necessarily advocating free-market capitalism (which is one of the reasons why we are in this mess in the first place), it is clear that the current economic structure relies too heavily on government intervention and prioritization of certain businesses over others. There is also a sense of lost purpose following de-industrialization of Western countries, and many who struggle with unemployment or lack of fulfilment in their jobs feel resentful of a system which seems to favour foreigners and the elites over the native inhabitants of Western lands.

It is the definition of human motivations purely in economic and material terms that lead people to adopt the mantras of capitalism and communism, for these ideologies lack an integrated understanding of society as a living entity, which has needs beyond purely the sensory. It is because of the quest for maximum comfort that we are expected to accept all lifestyles and behaviours no matter how degenerate and perverted, even if they do not extend beyond the individual. The reason that such passive acceptance of ‘individual rights’ is such a problem is because this leads to everything becoming defined in terms of subjective experience, and so the society as a whole loses all meaning beyond the individual.

Such conditions are exploited by those who have the intelligence to manipulate, but lack the empathy and appreciation for cosmic order that is required of those who hold power. This is because we have been convinced that there is no divine realm, as in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche: “God is dead, and we have killed him”. Spiritual values are seen as ‘abstract’, ‘vague’ and lacking the utilitarian application in which to achieve ‘realistic’ objectives. Because of its transcendent nature, spirituality can only be understood and utilized by certain people, which goes against the notion of ‘equality’, and so is spurned by most Modern ideologies. If there exists a natural hierarchy that is necessary for existence, then what need is there to erase distinctions between people in order to advance ‘social justice’?

The situation is now becoming tense, because there is a welling up of energy from those who wish to restore the natural order and resist attempts to remove distinctions between nations and peoples, while at the same time there is strong resistance from those who hold liberal or socialist values and wish to preserve the present course. Any attempt to reverse the downward trend into rampant egoism is met with responses which accuse proponents of Traditionalism of “backwards-thinking”, “bigotry” and associating with ideas relating to National Socialism or fascism. While Evola acknowledges the facets of these ideologies which correspond with Traditionalist thinking (such as the acknowledgement of natural hierarchy and the need to exalt the state and nation beyond the individual), he also criticizes them for appealing to populist sentiment and for placing too little focus on the spiritual realm in favour of realpolitik. Indeed, he criticizes both nationalism and totalitarianism, because both attitudes take the concepts of the nation and the state literally and see such things as imbued with some sort of divinity in and of themselves.

In this way, even perspectives that are usually seen as ‘right-wing’ come under scrutiny from a Traditionalist perspective, because they may place too much emphasis on social or economic concerns while ignoring the spiritual element, and so become no less an impediment than liberalism and socialism. For a society to function properly, there needs to be an acknowledgement of the divine as a guiding force and for that force to be invested in particular individuals, such as kings, priests and warriors. However, because people may easily confuse the divine attributes of a particular role with the individual who fulfils that role, it is necessary for there to exist an Order whose motivation is to find not only the best and most capable person for the job, but also one who is ‘pure of heart’; whose intentions are based on recognizing their spiritual being as a driving force behind their actions and not to use their position to fulfil selfish motives, as is so often the case today.

Indeed, there exists no state at present that is based on such principles, and so I caution against attributing any authority to any state existing today, as authority is something which can only be invested in those who are doing what they do for more than self-interest and who strive towards a higher purpose. It is also for this reason that I do not place too much importance on the principle of liberty, which is an oft misunderstood concept. While civil liberties are necessary to be maintained in order to prevent abuse by so-called authorities and malicious individuals, it is not a license to do whatever one wants as long as it “does not harm anybody else”. Each action has a ripple effect that radiates outwards, and so everything that you do will set an example for others around you, especially impressionable beings such as children and adolescents.

The promotion of such principles is described by Evola as “reactionary”, though not in the sense of existing solely in opposition to something else, but as a way to mitigate the destructive tendencies of progressive thinking and to form a basis from which to act. This constitutes a “conservative revolution”, which has its antecedent in Germany after the First World War and was largely extinguished under the Third Reich; a movement based on opposition to the rising tides of liberalism and socialism which threaten the cohesion of a nation by splitting it into competing factions in the form of ‘class warfare’ (though such narratives are now more commonly framed on perceived conflicts based on race or gender).

However, this ‘revolution’ is not meant to be taken in a political sense as is touted by Marxists, but is based on the concept of a spiritual revolution whereby a new society is formed by those who choose to embody these principles. This can only be achieved through individual efforts in conjunction with a collective will and must operate outside of the framework of the current political paradigm, as engaging in such a system will only taint our movement and open it up to infiltration by deep-state operatives. We can see how the Neo-Marxists have achieved their objectives by infiltrating our institutions and corrupting them from within. Because of this, I do not believe that we can retake these institutions, but rather create our own outside of the established systems and build a parallel society which is based on conservative values and spiritual ideals. A system built on lies and deceit will eventually fall, while one centred in eternal truths will withstand the test of time.

Wulf Willelmson

A Dedication to the Franks

Although my focus on history is usually centred on my native country of Scotland and the British Isles, I wish to explore the history of one of the Teutonic tribes from Continental Europe. The reason for this is that I have more recently felt drawn towards Continental Germanic spirituality as opposed to the Norse or Anglo-Saxon paths, particularly with regards to the tribe known as the ‘Franks’, who settled in what is now Flanders and the Netherlands as foederati; landed mercenaries hired by the Romans to defend their territory from other Teutonic tribes. The Franks went on to conquer Gaul and gave their name to France, and it is from them that the Franconian peoples are descended, namely the Dutch, Flemish and Afrikaners.

My own clan is descended from one of the Flemish families that participated in William the Bastard’s conquest of England and who were later invited to Scotland by David I in the 12th Century. Though the Franks were some of the main participants in abandoning their spiritual heritage in favour of the poison of Judeo-Christianity and spreading the disease to other tribes, they also had a reputation for ferocity and bravery and are an example of the archetype of the barbarian who fought against civilization only to succumb to its lure (as did many other Teutonic tribes during the ‘Folk-Wandering’ or ‘Migration Period’).

The Franks began as a confederation of smaller tribes who lived East of the Rhine, and coalesced into a singular ethnic entity in order to stand together against the Romans to the West. They were initially like most other barbarian tribes, described by the Romans as lacking armour and carrying swords, shields and the francisca, a type of throwing axe which was invented by the Franks and could bounce back when it hit the ground, potentially killing a foe from behind if you missed him on the initial throw. However, they do have their own origin history and are said to be descended from Trojans, which means that they may have had the same origin as the other Ten Lost Tribes of Israel and migrated to Western Germany.


Francisca, the tribal weapon of the Franks, note the curved head

The founder of their ruling dynasty, Merovech, was said to descend from a water god, possibly a Teutonic equivalent of Neptune. The confederation of tribes, led by the Cherusci and including the Bructeri and Sicambres, inflicted a crushing defeat upon the Romans at the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in 9AD. The Roman general Varus thought that he had secured the fealty of Arman, chief of the Cherusci, and accepted his invitation to pass through Teutoburg Forest with his army and retinue. The Romans were ambushed and slaughtered; the whole event was so traumatic to the Romans that Augustus subsequently went mad and they never again attempted to conquer the Germans, although they still raided their lands.

Between the 3rd and 5th Centuries AD, the Roman Empire was beginning to weaken and the Franks were frequently crossing the Rhine and invading the borderlands. Initially, the Romans had been able to repel them and return the favour; however, by this point civil war and reluctance to join the military among the Roman populace meant that they could no longer keep the Franks at bay and eventually they struck a deal with them. Several of the tribes would be settled on the other side of the Rhine in Toxandria (and areas which straddles both Flanders and the Netherlands) in exchange for military service, becoming known as the ‘Salian Franks’ (meaning ‘paid Franks’).

Thus, the Romans made allies of their enemies and the Franks became foderati, a system which eventually led to the Fall of the Roman Empire by allowing foreign warlords to take control of the army and carve up the empire among themselves. Though the Salian Franks were initially helpful in repelling invaders, and even participated in defeating the Huns and their allies at the Battle of Chalons, they began to adopt a more predatory attitude towards the weakening Romans, and so they broke their allegiance and pushed West until they reached the Somme under Chlodio. The exposure to Roman tactics and mass produced weapons and armour made them a more effective fighting force, and they simply decided to use this against the Romans when they became dissatisfied with their pay.

Eventually, the Franks on both sides of the Rhine were united under Childeric and his son, Clovis, through a combination of subjugating and assassinating rival chieftains. Clovis also conquered most of Gaul and put an end to the last vestige of Roman authority at Soissons. His Burgundian wife, Clotide, was a devout Catholic, and attempted incessantly to convert her husband, even causing the death of their first son through forced baptism. However, he was finally won over after gaining a victory against the Alemanni (another tribe from Western Germany) at the Battle of Tolbiac.

The story goes that Clovis was losing the battle and prayed to the Christian god rather than his own for victory, which he then achieved. To him, this proved the superiority of Christianity and he converted to Catholicism, despite the fact that the Catholics within his kingdom were outnumbered by both pagans and Arian Christians. Even more so, in the 7th Century Irish missionaries had to establish monasteries in Gaul in order to have more of an influence on the rural population, which was still largely pagan. This was the beginning of the gradual submission of the Teutonic tribes to the Catholic Church, which was one of the only things that united the Franks after the kingdom fell apart upon Clovis’ death.


The extent of the Frankish realm under Clovis

As was part of the Salic Law, Clovis’ kingdom was divided among his sons. This, however, only led to instability and the four kingdoms began to fight amongst themselves. Though the Frankish kingdom was eventually united again under Chlothar the Great in 613, they began to suffer raids from other tribes outside of the kingdom and were eventually faced with the Islamic invasion in the early 8th Century. The Muslims had conquered Spain and were now marching into France, but were defeated at the decisive Battle of Tours by the king’s regent, Charles Martel, in 732, halting any further Islamic advance into Europe.

Unfortunately, at this point the Merovingian dynasty was weaker than before and the kings were reliant on their generals. Eventually, the last Merovingian king was overthrown by Pepin the Short, who established a new dynasty and campaigned against the Basques as well as the Muslims. He also established Frankish vassal kingdoms in Spain, which eventually enabled the Reconquista and the eventual expulsion of Muslims and Jews from Spain. However, his son has been given more fame as a result of his conquests.

The Frankish king known as ‘Charlemagne’ (‘Charles the Great’) is one of the most famous and infamous rulers of the Dark Ages. While he managed to expand the Frankish domain well beyond its former territory, he was also a ruthless despot and Catholic fanatic, which is why he is also known as ‘Karl the Saxon Slayer’. He is remembered among Wotanists as the tormentor of the Saxons in Germany and for the defeat and subsequent forced conversion of their leader, Widukind. He oversaw the felling of oaks dedicated to Thunaer (Thor) and the various ‘Irminsuls’ (sacred poles representing the axis of the universe) in Germany.

However, despite helping to spread to Judeo-Christian virus to the other German tribes, he outlawed usury and defeated the Turkic Avar Empire in modern Hungary, neutralizing them as a threat to Western Europe. He may be most famous for helping Pope Adrian I by conquering the hostile Kingdom of Lombardy and for assisting Pope Leo III against his enemies in Rome, for which he was coronated as ‘Holy Roman Emperor’ by the pope. Thus, he is a divisive figure who represents both an effective monarch and a religious bigot, the builder of a hegemony that included much of Western Europe under one god and one king.

After Charlemagne’s death, his kingdom was inherited by his son, Louis, whose kingdom was then split among his three sons when he died. The resulting divisions were never again united, and the three kingdoms lay the foundations for the modern countries of France, Germany and Italy. Though France solidified into a centralized kingdom, Germany and Italy were governed as the Holy Roman Empire, a loose coalition of various duchies and city-states that swore fealty to the successors of Charlemagne.

By this time, the Latin -derived French language had become the tongue of the Western Franks and German the that of the Eastern Franks, although their native language persisted in the Frankish heartlands of Flanders and the Netherlands. Though these territories were claimed by either the French king or the Holy Roman Emperor, as trading centres they soon gained more power and influence and functioned largely independently of the kings they were supposedly ruled by. The Franconian peoples not only ventured to nearby Britain, but also became explorers and traders in the form of the Dutch Empire between the 16th and 20th Centuries, as well as the Boer colonies of South Africa.

Despite their noble origins and past conquests, the Franconians are not a numerous people, and are at risk of being outnumbered in their homelands by mass immigration from Islamic and African nations and are facing gradual genocide in South Africa. As a descendant of the Franks, I wish to invoke our brave ancestors and our gods to guide us in these dark times. The Franks are remembered as one of the foremost barbarian tribes who brought the might of Rome to its knees, and I am confident that the heroic spirit of those tribes can rise up again in their descendants to fight against the Modern Rome; the EU and the various globalist power structures that strangle our folk with the rope of Modern civilization.

Wodan, id est furor!

Wulf Willemson

On the Power of Words and Thoughts

One of the ways in which mankind differs from the animal kingdom is in the ability to use verbal communication in the form of language. Animals do have the ability to communicate through sounds and gestures as we do, but they lack the capability to form abstract concepts that may have no immediate relevance to daily life. The fact that we can assign meaning to things which do not actually exist in the physical world means that we can create social structures and beliefs around ideas rather than simply what we experience trying to survive. This is the gift that we have been given by Wotan, and it is intended to allow us to work God’s will on Earth in accordance with our own ways of being. Both stories and theoretical concepts allow us to communicate to others how we can go about enacting divine order in our societies and think about how we can better ourselves and the world around us. Unfortunately, this gift may also be used to mislead and confuse, and not only is this the case with others who propagate certain ideas, but we can also confuse ourselves when we adopt a set of values or beliefs that are not based in reality and exist only within our minds.

It is for this reason that it is important not to attach too much significance to ideas and treat them as if they are physical things, for then they can become more significant in society than actual issues in life. For this reason, I do not fear the ideas of others, though I may fear them for what they do as a result of those ideas. It is in this sense that the action is to be distinguished from thought, as one’s own set of beliefs and values may change as do the actions which are a result of those. However, a set of behaviours and actions cannot be changed so easily, and if a negative pattern has been established in one’s life or in society as a whole, it requires physical effort rather than simply a change of focus, although that is an important first step. Though I myself like to use various ‘isms’ to describe certain beliefs and thought-patterns amongst certain groups of people, they are only there as a collection of related concepts and not fixed entities. Words may change their meaning depending on the context, and this is one way in which those trained in verbal parlance may use them to influence others.

No one person has a monopoly on the meaning of an idea, even if they coined the term themselves. It all depends on a mixture of common understanding and personal interpretation. For example, the term ‘libertarianism’ is generally agreed upon to represent a belief in the preference for a state of individual liberty and freedom, and emphasizes individual rights which tend to override governmental authority. While the government is deemed necessary, it should ideally be there to safeguard the rights of the people that it governs and to function with minimal levels of interference with personal freedom. However, things get a little more complicated if you consider ‘libertarianism’ as an ideology. It does not have any fixed approach to an economic system (though many self-proclaimed libertarians favour free-market capitalism) and neither does it promise a specific model for how to run a society. It is simply concerned with the interaction between the individual and the state, and represents a general set of principles based on this. This is in contrast to ‘authoritarianism’ where the rights of the state override the rights of the individual and also to ‘identitarianism’, where the ethnic identity of a nation is deemed more important than either the individual or the state.

Despite the less rigid concepts applied to these terms, they can still be moulded into specific forms and used as an ideology. In several Western countries there are political groups known as the ‘Libertarian Party’, though they may have different policies and approaches to the libertarian worldview. In this way, such a concept refers to a general attitude rather than a specific set of ideas which are exclusive to libertarianism. It works the same way with any sort of ideology, since they are all open to individual interpretation and understanding, even if they attempt to form a solid form for the sake of promoting a specific set of ideas. It is worth not getting too bound up in attaching inflexible ideas to a particular concept and understand that the meaning of a word may change over time. A good example would be the term ‘gay’, which originally meant something like ‘giddiness’ and changed its meaning to refer to homosexuals. Even more recently, it has come to mean something more akin to ‘weak’ or ‘disappointing’, which shows how a word may change its meaning when applied to something that shares some of the same qualities as the previous meaning.

If you were to ignore the more recent change of meaning of the word ‘gay’ and would only take it to refer to a homosexual (or even the earlier meaning), this may be at odds with the understanding of the word that was held by somebody else and could potentially lead to misunderstanding and conflict. Thus, it is more important to understand an individual’s own definition of a label if they apply it to themselves rather than one’s own definition. Many religions and political ideologies have variation of definition within their own circles, though they will maintain their cohesiveness if they are based on shared interests rather than individual preferences. To get the gist of what somebody else says is more important than one particular word or idea that they use to describe something. Similarly, if we attempt to stick to one particular set of principles without considering whether it actually suits our authentic self or not, then this can cause us to become confused and do things which we would rather not. The most important thing is what something means to you, though you should make sure that it is appropriate and not liable to be misunderstood at the same time. Labels are merely signposts to describe the contents of a set of ideas, but the labels themselves do not exist in physical reality.

Though there is probably a place from which we derive our inspiration and ideals, those ideas can only manifest in the material realm with willpower and a sense of being grounded in reality, though not so grounded that we lose touch with the transcendental reality from which we derive our thoughts. It is my belief that thoughts exist in the mental space, but that they derive from each of the Nine Worlds, thereby opening up mankind to influence from divine, natural and demonic entities. Our own intuition can help to guide us to know what voices should and should not be listened to. Some of these voices may come from others who have either inspired or abused us, but it is necessary to distinguish between one’s own inner voice and those from outside, even though it is good to be open to other people’s ideas. Words should be used to enlighten rather than enslave, and it is better not to expect that they may be relied on in the place of action. Likewise, they should never be seen on the same level as actions, as words are only effective if they can influence the will of a man and thus cause him to act, but in such an instance it is the action which is more important.

Wulf Willelmson

Ragnarök and the Fate of the West in the New Age

The lamentable state of our civilization is part of a natural process that must be undergone. The world has only recently passed into the Age of Aquarius, known to the Ancient Greeks as the ‘Lead Age’. The current cycle is known in the Norse Eddas as Ragnarök (‘doom of the gods’), which coincides with the dreaded Fimbulwinter and the battle between the gods and the Jötnar. Naturally, if the inheritors of a civilization feel that ‘God is dead’, then this has already happened. However, the war rages on after the deaths of Wotan, Thor, Tyr and Heimdall. In time, their jötunn slayers are avenged by Wotan’s son, Widar and Thor’s sons Magni and Modi (‘great’ and ‘brave’). Widar becomes a reincarnation of Wotan when he kills Fenrir, and has been identified with Kalki ‘the Avenger’ from Hindu mythology (an incarnation of Vishnu). This is followed by a time of renewal, in which Balder and Nanna return at the beginning of spring (Imbolc).

The stories of Balder’s Death and Ragnarök as described in the Eddas refer to the yearly cycle, and each event in the story is marked by the seasonal festivals. However, they also refer to cycles in human consciousness and the rise and fall of civilizations. We are destined to repeat history because it is part of Natural Law to experience life, death and rebirth, and so our societies reflect this. This is also directly tied to the fate of the Aryan race and the civilizations that they create, attempt to sustain and eventually neglect. As the creators of civilization, we feel most capable when engaged in the process of generation, reflected in inventiveness, imagination and exploration. The reason for this is that, since the Aryans ultimately descend from the Silver Age Atlanteans and before that, the Hyperboreans of the Golden Age (who lived at the North Pole at a time before it froze), we are naturally engaged in rajasic (productive, passionate, generative) behaviour in our homeland of Europe. Survival in a cool and temperate climate means having to store food over winter (resulting in the trait of long-term thinking) and to eat meat and fats to endure the cold. The type of society resulting from this lifestyle is that of hardiness, honour and wit, where the tribal bond and the connection to the land are still held sacred because of the need to work together to survive in a cold climate.

This differs from the sattvic (goodness, peace, equilibrium) effect that occurs when the Aryans migrate to warm and dry climates. There, the tendency is more to build and sustain a civilization and to invite other races to become part of it. The less severe the winters of a land, the less need there is to store food and eat animal flesh to survive. This is one of the reasons why the Aryan religions of India (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism) are more prone to vegetarianism and pacifism to a greater or lesser degree. The ancient civilizations of Anatolia, Sumer, Egypt and the Indus Valley were all founded by Aryans and went on to become states. The natural inequalities between the races meant that hierarchy became necessary in order to differentiate ranks and roles, and so this is how the caste system of India originated. East of the Indus River, Aryan culture was preserved to the present day, where it survives in the form of the three aforementioned religions. However, in Central Asia, the Middle East and Egypt, some of the Aryans became corrupted by engaging in black magic and began to worship demons that they encountered when they ventured into the desert as ascetics, or if they were engaged too much in acquiring material power.

This represents the danger of adopting extreme lifestyles in foreign lands, and eventually Aryans became disconnected from their heritage and began to mix with the local peoples. Though such societies may be based on spiritual piety and moral goodness, they also begin to grow stagnant once they remain in a fixed form for too long. The elaborate law codes, taxes and censuses needed to run a state eventually become a burden on the people because the society becomes managed by bureaucracy. Typically, states that emerge from kingdoms into oligarchy and later democracy begin to expand and build empires based primarily on either military expansion or trade (though they always have both). The function of the society becomes focused on sustaining the civilization itself and not the people that created it. The subsequent confusion resulting from the formation of a multicultural society causes it to fracture and break into competing factions, each asserting their own interests. This is when a civilization goes into decline and experiences increasing inequality based not on worth, but on wealth.

Thus the slow slip into Fimbulwinter begins. After Balder is killed and the Jötnar (demons) grow in strength, the Aryans then engage in tamasic (darkness, ignorance, perversion) behaviour and abandon their ancient beliefs altogether, completely forgetting their gods or adopting those of the people they originally conquered. This happened in the Roman Empire with the adoption of Judeo-Christianity, and later on in the British Empire with the proliferation of Zionism and Marxism. The Aryan folk lose faith in the society that they have created because they no longer feel inspired to create. The barrenness of urban life and cosmopolitanism drives many to despair as they lose touch with their spirituality. The promises of equality and fairness begin to be used against the Aryans and their empires are squabbled over by foreign warlords, leaving the civilization in ruin. However, as long as the ethereal blood inherited from the Golden Age runs through our spiritual veins, we may be reborn and live to create again. After each age comes the cleansing of the world, and this age will be no different. Widarr (‘wise noble’ or ‘the silent one’) is destined to avenge the death of Wotan and destroy Fenrir, the demon of greed.

As we are currently moving into a new age, we can expect that conditions will emerge in which Balder can return and we will move into a new spring. The Völuspá (‘prophecy of the seeress’) promises that “fields unsowed [will] bear ripened fruit” and that “all ills grow better”, which probably means that we will find new ways to produce food and heal our spiritual diseases. However, this will also be accompanied by tumultuous change, the onset of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and the resulting overthrow of the ‘New World Order’, an attempt to draw in all nations into one and to destroy the equilibrium of our planet. Widar is the ‘Silent Avenger’, working from behind the shadows of falsehood and lies that blind us in the West today. Our folk will awaken and we will restore our dignity and pride. We simply have to understand that we must survive in order to continue the process of human civilization, otherwise the whole world would fall into chaos. This does not mean that our race is more necessary than any other, but that we will a unique role as dreamers and visionaries, explorers and conquerors.

The creative spark which we inherit from the gods has been passed down to us in order to act as mediators between them and mankind. As individualism pervades society and each person feels whittled down to their singular ego, we then feel cut off from our purpose and consider events in the world only from the level of threat to ourselves. Thus, the survival instinct is lost and many simply give up from loss of hope. This is inevitable given the dreadful conditions under which most of us live, where our souls are crushed under the corporate monotony of daily life. Though materialism is still promoted because of its success in keeping us distracted, it is increasingly becoming less satisfying and many of us are searching for something more. That something is that divine impulse which drives us towards success, honour and victory. It may be in our nature to be melancholic, but it is not in our nature to lose. With courage, wisdom and strength, we will win and we may live to see what will inspire us in the new age.

Wulf Willelmson

Abrahamism: The Doctrine of Deception

The art of deception is one of verbal and conceptual persuasion, designed to give a false impression of reality. This could range from something resulting from the fragility of a human ego, such as somebody who lies in order not to get in trouble, to potentially more sinister and purposeful intentions to gain power through misleading others. This sort of lying relies on saying something that oneself knows not to be true, but that can be used to coerce people into thinking or behaving in a way that benefits oneself. An example of this would be the threat of Hell, a common feature of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic dogmas. The imagery of a fiery place where sinners would burn in eternity is not emphasized in the Bible, though it is consistently referred to in the Koran; the Christian interpretation is mainly based on the Greek concept of Tartarus, a part of the Underworld reserved only for the most evil men after death.

The idea of Hell is not likely to be true in a literal sense, and the esoteric understanding is that Hell is a state of being rather than a physical place. If this is understood within the context of reincarnation, then it may refer to a life after death that is Hellish rather than a physical realm of torment. The only reason that there is a belief in the concept of a literal Hell is because foolish preachers and clergy believe in such things and tell other people to believe in it as if it were true. This is not true deception, since the false believer is not aware that his belief is a delusion. The more worrying aspect of this is when a spiritual adept knows that this is the case, but chooses to present a false impression to others for the sake of control.

The reason I wish to draw attention to this particular subject is because we are constantly being deceived in society through religious, academic, social and political institutions. They have been constructed in a way that is designed to trap us in false realities, confirming our delusions by extending the same indoctrination to the entire population. Naturally, there will always be those that can understand the difference between right and wrong, truth and lie; but it is also the case that we all suffer from delusion to some extent, because of lies that we tell ourselves or are told to us. Because of the insecurity of the human ego, this smaller part of us wishes to become whole, and will attach itself to any ideas or belief systems that appeal to our perception of the world. While it is worth believing in things that help to complete our picture of reality, since none of us can know everything, this also means that we must be careful of not adopting perspectives that contradict observable facts and our personal experiences. Fear of the unknown is one way that we can choose to believe in ridiculous ideas that, rather than meant to make sense of the world, only serve to cause us anxiety or even anger.

It is this weaker state of being that we can be taken advantage of, and can be persuaded to believe what is not true because it cannot be shown to be so. Sometimes, we choose to believe lies because the truth can be too hard to face. This is unfortunately why so many of us suffer from personality disorders and compulsive behaviour. When one knows that what he sees either in the world around him or within himself is not true, it causes angst because it does not fit with our worldview. This can then cause cognitive dissonance and result in the adoption of delusion. We have all had something that we thought about ourselves or our surroundings proven wrong, such as realising that we were not as talented as we thought, or that we are having constant issues with our environment that is causing personal distress. It is the refusal to acknowledge these problems that makes us feel like we have to believe what we are told in order to make us feel better about our situation, rather than facing up to the truth of it. In this sort of instance, we are then vulnerable to the machinations of liars and charlatans who wish to gain power for themselves.

It is unfortunate that our society has become ponerized, meaning that, because those with the most power suffer from psychopathy, then this is reflected in the society and psychopathic behaviour has become normalized. This means that deception is present in all aspects of society. From the food we eat to the clothes we wear, we are given a false impression of the scale of the effect that our decisions within a consumer society have on our environment and on other nations. We do not see the damage of our collective actions because they are obscured behind the constant presence of technology in our lives that distract us from realizing the true scale of destruction caused by over-civilization. People who are misled in turn mislead others as part of a cycle of entrapment within an ever-intrusive system. The lies told by corporations, the media and politicians are meant to make us think that the solutions to problems are only those which can be done within the confines of an already established system, which is the one that is being used to abuse us.

The system that has been created is founded upon the principles of using distortion and distraction in order to fool others into believing in a false version of reality. It is a tactic employed by psychopaths in order to conceal their true intentions. One example of this would be how such people hide behind the mask of Judaism as a way to shield themselves from criticism. By associating their actions with this particular ethno-religious group, they are able to simultaneously make their actions synonymous with Judaism while also getting away with their crimes by invoking claims that ‘anti-Semitism’ is being directed against them, even if most Jews have nothing to do with their machinations.

Thus, they have ensured for themselves a way to evade justice by both associating their actions with Jews as a whole and also the resulting reluctance to call out their behaviour by those who do not wish to seem anti-Semitic. The same is also true for Islam, where criticism of extreme interpretations of Islamic ideology has been interpreted as ‘racism’, even though such things have little to do with the race of those involved. While followers of the Abrahamic religions may not be involved at all in creating lies and are probably deceived themselves, and there is no point therefore in going after those that blindly follow, there is still a strong tradition of deception inherent in the Abrahamic faiths.

This technique of managing society through fear and scapegoating has been continuously built on top of our traditional societies since the migrations of peoples from the Middle East and North Africa into Europe, who brought with them the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. However, these belief systems are not based on the folk religions of that part of the world, though Judaism and Islam in particular have incorporated much of their practices into their own religions (as Christianity has absorbed many aspects of native European traditions).

Rather, the most destructive forms of these religions form a specific cult which spreads itself through intolerance and falsehood. Abrahamism is named as such after the Hebrew patriarch Abraham, the first iconoclast and smasher of ‘idols’, beginning the trend of destroying pagan worship within our groves and temples. He saw the expressions of the divine in the forms of images as distortions of divinity, as his own ego could not handle the concept of representing a divine force in physical form. It was this practice of controlling what symbols could be used to represent God and blaming others for spreading lies in order to maintain control over society that has been passed down to the present day among those who have power in religion and the media.

This was the beginning of a religion rather than a race, and it is worth emphasizing that the Ancient Hebrews were the descendants of European nomads (Hyksos) who settled in the Middle East and Egypt, and that modern ‘Jews’ are mainly descended from Levantines and North Africans (Sephardi Jews) and a tribe of Scythians known as ‘Khazars’ (Ashkenazi Jews). The ‘Israelites’ of the Bible were also known as the ‘Cimmerians’ and, after being expelled (interpreted as being ‘freed from slavery’ in the Bible) from Egypt settled first in Scythia, then Anatolia (Troy) after being expelled by the Scythians before being expelled by the Greeks and migrating to the British Isles, becoming the Welsh (‘Cymry’ comes from the name ‘Cimmerian’ and ‘Welsh’ from the Anglo-Saxon ‘wealas’, meaning ‘foreigner’) as well as the Gaels in Northern Spain (before moving on to Ireland) and also the Romans in Italy.

These groups are what became known as the ‘Ten Lost Tribes of Israel’, while the Judahites and Levites settled West of the Dead Sea and mixed with the locals, resulting in the culture of Pharisaic Judaism described in the New Testament. Again, these historical peoples are not for the most part what we could consider today to be ‘Irish’, ‘Welsh’, ‘Italian’ or ‘Jewish’ as they colonized the local peoples and absorbed them into their cultures, while also incorporating many of their local customs.

They brought with them a corruption of Aryan spirituality, which instead of being designed to spread truth to man, uses lies to deceive men in order to control them and gain material power. Firstly through the introduction of usury, whereby a man could borrow cattle from a nobleman at interest, ensuring a profit for the ‘Hebrew’ (deriving from the Ancient Egyptian ‘apiru’ and Akkadian ‘habiru’, meaning ‘bandit’ or ‘robber’). The corrupted nobleman could then use a bonded man to do labour for him and fight in his warband, all through deceiving a man into thinking that this sort of behaviour would not lead to the enslavement of his descendants through inherited debt. Thus began the introduction of forced labour and conscription, forming the basis of the state and the beginning of slavery in Western Europe.

Profit rather than honour and glory became the motive for warfare, and this cultural infection spread to Continental Europe, resulting in what has become known as ‘Celtic’ civilization, which was merely the local culture being driven by foreign motives. Though the newcomers were forced to share power with the druids, they were engaged in a power struggle from this point on, and frequently employed mercenaries to undermine the druids’ traditional authority. The Western European tribes began to form into states, presided over either by a king or by a council of corrupted druids acting as a senate.

After the Romans had sufficiently taken over much of the Mediterranean and Europe (the Romans were invited by ‘Celtic’ chieftains in Britain and Gaul to help fight their enemies), they then began a policy of incorporating the local religions into the Roman state religion, culminating in the Cult of the Emperor under Augustus and eventually in the adoption of Judeo-Christianity under Constantine. The institution of the Catholic Church, which outlived the Western Roman Empire, was able to continue the process of corruption and control over Europe. Though the ‘Celtic Christianity’ that was promulgated in the British Isles was initially an attempt to reconcile the traditions of Druidism with Judeo-Christianity, it was eventually overtaken by mainstream Catholicism in the Middle Ages and soon after Germania and Scandinavia also succumbed. This process also happened in Eastern Europe, due to the promotion of ‘Orthodox Christianity’ by the Byzantine Romans.

After the Middle Ages and the subsequent Protestant Reformation, Kingdom and Church morphed into People and Market, and the materialistic political religions of Capitalism and Socialism took over from the earlier form of social control. These ideologies are presented as options because they work within the material world, not in the spiritual one where these corrupt elites (plutocratic banksters and treacherous ‘clergy’ and ‘royalty’) possess knowledge that is purposely hidden from us, becoming ‘occult’ (meaning ‘hidden’). The self-serving system of our society is a result of the deliberate deception that is practised by all capable advertisers and socialites. When a person with completely selfish motives is not recognized for what they are out of misplaced respect and trust, then they are able to take advantage of others and convince them that their way is the right one, even though they simply mean to make us do what they want.

This information is one interpretation of the events described in the Old Testament and the subsequent building of so-called ‘Modern society’, where we are fooled into believing what is not true and helping to destroy ours and other peoples’ societies in order to advance an agenda at odds with our own self-interest. Those exhibiting psychopathic behaviour are using their skills to persuade others to believe in these false religions that they have created, which are only there to mislead us. This does not mean that those who hold beliefs derived from these religions are necessarily psychopathic, but that those involved in organizing others religiously or politically may have a tendency to exploit these religions because of their history.

As far as I am aware, these facts add up to contradict the given wisdom concerning the history of Judaism, and so the claim that the Jews are descended from the Ancient Hebrews is a misinterpretation perpetuated by the Abrahamic dogmas, in order to hide the identities of these psychopaths under the guise of ‘Christians’, ‘Muslims’ or ‘Jews’. It is because their religion is connected to others merely under their control that they can use these groups to fight amongst each other, a tactic played out mostly in political situations today and in the conflict between the Left and Right wings (two wings of the same bird).

However, these lies are starting to fall apart. The proliferation of information through the Internet has given us access to the knowledge that can be used to pass through the veil of illusion and see our world the way it is. The narrative that I have given is the sum of research using mostly online sources. Such information was once jealously guarded by the corrupted clerics, and are still difficult to interpret. Even the version of events presented here may have some incorrect information and conclusions, in which case I would urge anybody reading this to find out these things for yourself, as you now can. However, such endeavours must be accompanied by time spent with others or in Nature, as the virtual world can distort reality, as the forces that seek to deceive us in real life also operate online. Therefore, it is wise to know how to discriminate and know what information is useful and what is merely meant to sell us a product.

A society based on falsehood has been built up around us, and so we must be careful in escaping the web of lies that we do not cut at our roots. These days, the original folk beliefs are mixed in with Abrahamic religions, (and Abrahamism is sometimes present in Neopaganism) and so judgement of action is more important than judgement of belief. We do not want to be fooled into fighting against our fellow man, for if we do, then we fight against ourselves. Our quarrel is with those who use religious and political systems as a pretext for power-grabbing. The practices of Abrahamism are a misuse of spiritual knowledge in order to have control over the masses. Zionism and Islamism are their modern-day expressions and are used to abuse people all over the world. It can be difficult to know who to trust in such dark times, though we can discern those who have our best interests at heart if we know who our kindred and allies are. Remember, truth will set you free.

Wulf Willelmson

The Monarch and the Anarch

It may seem strange for a self-professed monarchist to endorse the concept of anarchism, since the idea of having no leaders is at odds with unity under a single leader. However, I do think that it is possible for such contradictory concepts to co-exist within a single worldview, but a distinction must be made between anarchism as a political ideology and as a personal philosophy. The promotion of the state of anarchy is an ideological manifestation of the chaotic forces within the human psyche which is, in essence, a state of absolute individualism and the absence of any collective identity.

This is not the same as applying the principles of anarchism to oneself, which is something that does not exclude a collective consciousness. However, this is only possible for those who are capable of becoming fully individuated, and will not be a desirable path for those who require leadership and direction from others. Monarchy is the natural state for a group to exist, since one leader is needed to act as the head of a collective. Unfortunately, this becomes a problem once a monarchy becomes a state, which extends the collective beyond the individual, essentially violating the principle of mutual consent and enveloping all inhabiting a given territory within its net.

Being an ‘anarch’ rather than just an ‘anarchist’ means living an independent life and answering to none but one’s own inner direction. An anarch may be in league with a monarch for mutual benefit, but this is something which can only ever be continued through contractual obligation. Once there is no longer a reason for an anarch to remain allied to a monarch, then he may leave the monarch’s ‘realm’ and exist instead as a freeman. This system of anarcho-monarchism is the ideal mode of human interaction, but unfortunately the mechanism of the state has been imposed upon us from above and makes it impossible for an individual to exist outside of its jurisdiction. Common law is present as a way of making each individual responsible for themselves and to recompense or seek compensation from other individuals for any infraction committed, as defined by common sense.

Criminal law is only ever something which is defined by an external authority, which is usually the state but may also be influenced by wealthy lobbies and even public opinion. It is the assumption that the individual has transgressed against the collective rather than another person, and so the state becomes the arbiter of justice and defines what is and what isn’t a crime. The problem with the application of criminal law is that if the state becomes abusive (and at this point, all are in some form or another), then it means that the law will be used to persecute those who are not truly criminals, only dissidents, even if they are non-violent.

It is for this reason that all over the world we must endure laws enacted against freedom of speech and thought, personal possession of weapons and substances and basic rights to natural utilities. Every aspect of human existence is becoming increasingly regulated and scrutinized, to the point where more and more just can’t handle the unnatural conditions that this fosters and choose to end their lives or those of others. If we are not allowed to exist as individuals, then the human endeavour becomes reduced to what the collective deems to be worthwhile, which becomes impossible to break free from once a state is established. While it is certainly true that there must be some level of social control employed, it must be based on divine principles, which are discovered from within and transcend the ego. An individual who can utilize their talents to direct and employ the service of others is only able to act as an effective monarch if he is aware of his own responsibilities to his kinsmen. It is not about having absolute control over others and interfering in as many aspects of their lives as possible.

In Britain, we used to have elective monarchies, which functioned on the basis of all freemen gathering together to vote for the one who was seen to be the best leader. This was known among the Norsemen as the álthing, and it was through the selection process that the best man from among the nobility, the jarl, was drawn, who was the spiritual leader of the tribe. There were equivalents in all of the various British cultures, and it was only with the Romans that we were subjected to state tyranny. Thankfully, they never managed to conquer Scotland, and so here the old ways continued for longer.

However, after the Normans led by William the Bastard gained a foothold in England, the concept of the state was introduced to Scotland with the reforms of David I, who sought to centralize his authority and established a system of permanent primogeniture and hereditary monarchy. Ever since then, we have undergone the increasing encroachment of the state into our lives, beginning with the so-called ‘divinely appointed’ Medieval monarchs, who later became ‘constitutional monarchs’. The result is that in Modern times, we have had many a weak and ineffective monarch who is subject to the will of a corrupt and decadent parliament which does the bidding of powerful corporations and banks. Now, the British monarch is more of a celebrity and a mere facet of national sentimentality rather than a leader.

I have already discussed the details of tribal monarchy in my article concerning Neo-Monarchism, and so I wish to return to the concept of anarchism, specifically the misinterpretations of it. The most common attribution of anarchism in recent times is to the communist group known as Antifa, who act as redshirt street-thugs against perceived ‘fascists’. However, the sort of anti-statist rhetoric touted by such organizations is based on the writings of Karl Marx, who proposed the implementation of a stateless society where all is held in common. On the face of it, the Marxist doctrine appears to advocate anarchism, since the undesirable state has been removed and resources are available to all.

However, since private property has always existed among human societies (at least with regards to handmade goods as opposed to land which has traditionally been held in common), the complete abolition of private property means that the individual is not recognized as a sovereign entity. This means that all utilities are subject to the will of the collective, which is the difference between the utopia of communism and the ideal of anarchism, that is the freedom to choose who to work with or for. Absolute collective ownership is only possible with the oversight of some external authority, which is why all attempts to implement communism have failed to abolish the state, as the state is necessary to administer redistribution. This is similar to the concept behind fascism, where the individual and the state become subsumed into one entity and essentially leads to the same result, except that private property is still acknowledged.

Aside from these misunderstandings which arise among anti-social adolescents and weak-willed men, there exist many appendages to anarchist thought, each of which focuses on the individual’s perception of an ideal lifestyle. Some may prefer to emphasize reducing reliance on technology, others to pursue private enterprise and there are also those of us who seek to work as individuals for the sake of their nation. The obligation of an individual to any collective should be voluntary, and each should be able to exercise freedom of association based on one’s own personal values.

Without the state, you have less need to feel resentment towards others, because you then become responsible for yourself and therefore have nothing to complain about if you subject yourself to authority, since it is a mutually agreed partnership where both parties must agree to the terms of a contract if one is made. Anarchy is a term used to describe the state of leaderlessness, where every individual is out for themselves and no collective unity is present. It is for this reason that monarchy is necessary to provide guidance for those who need it and for a monarch to fulfil his role as a leader. However, we should still allow for the presence of the anarch, who may remain on the outskirts of the tribal territory or wander from place to place, guided by his own inner light.

Wulf Willelmson

Reducing Consumption in a Technocratic Society

Distractions, distractions, distractions. Our Modern lives are full of them, especially since we have become so immersed in the use of advanced technology on a daily basis. Our ancestors never had to deal with such a high level of stimulation, and so they were able to focus on what needed to be done. It is because we have access to so much stimuli that we have less willpower when it comes to thinking about what our true purpose is and how to go about fulfilling our needs. Though access to the internet has the potential to massively broaden our horizons, the fact that so much information is present also means that it can be difficult to discriminate effectively through what is worth spending time on and what is draining our energy and time. Websites and apps and television and video games are designed to constantly grab our attention and keep us returning to them, keeping us in a state of trance as we become mesmerized by the amount of options available that satiate our brain’s reward system. This is done primarily to gain exposure and revenue, and though it is not harmful to browse or use these things occasionally, habitual usage is leading to a decreased amount of personal time in our lives that could be put to better use.

It is not so much a matter of abstaining from such habits altogether, since depriving ourselves of things we crave as a result of regular use only strengthens our sense of attachment, making it more difficult to succeed in reducing our usage. This will be different depending on what particular website or program is being overused, and some will require simple steps towards gradually reducing our usage, while others will require restriction to occasional use and some must even be abandoned altogether (such as excessive consumption of psychologically harmful material). If there is a website that is addictive but also provides us with useful information, then it is useful to sort through one’s subscriptions or followed newsfeeds to see what is offering us worthwhile content and what is merely taking advantage of what we respond to. By separating the wheat from the chaff and retaining what contributes to our lives and discarding the rubbish, we will find that we have not only more time to spend consuming worthwhile content, but also that we don’t have to spend as much time on our devices as we have been. Additionally, having a vast range of options to choose from has the effect of shortening our attention span, and so it becomes difficult to have the patience to focus our attention on acquiring skills.

We currently live under a technocracy, and so control over online content and consumer products has become a way of manipulating what people think and how they behave. Therefore, it is important that we ourselves determine what we consume rather than having it decided for us. The psychological manipulation that goes into hooking our minds into thinking that we need a product is the result of increasingly sophisticated marketing strategies, and so it is becoming more and more difficult to resist what’s on offer to us. Having the discipline to know when you are being tricked into wasting your time or buying something you don’t need is part of becoming sovereign and autonomous. We are not forced to participate in a destructive society, we are merely persuaded to. Multinational corporations take advantage of our laziness and cravings in order to sell rubbish to us, and this is no different online. It is worth remembering that most companies do not have our best interests at heart, and so it would not be below them to convince us that something is as good as they say it is when it is in fact not, and even that something that is true is false. There is no fair play when it comes to competing for people’s time and money, as the corporatist system succeeds on this basis.

As a consequence of being told or convinced what is worth our time both in our occupations and during our free time, we are left with less options when it comes to personal fulfilment. The feeling of existential emptiness is what drives consumerism and keeps us enthralled to a market economy that has become centralized and corrupt. Therefore, it is necessary to decide as an individual what should be given one’s time and attention and what is detrimental to one’s well-being. Many of us work jobs that involve being in a state of overstimulation as a result of constant exposure to technology, which can cause us to feel like we need to continue this stimulation at home in order to escape boredom. Others may spend most of their day away from this sort of thing, but it is often the case that this makes folk more eager to use their devices in their spare time or during work breaks because of understimulation. Either way, resisting the urge to spend too much time on our devices is needed to make sure that we are able to achieve our potential and be less reliant on technology.

However, I am not necessarily proposing minimalism (though that might suit some), it is more about allocating the correct amount of time and energy into our actions. Regulating our exposure through time limits or treating indulgences as rewards for achievements rather than rewards for very little effort is a good way to reduce the time we spend online even while being able to enjoy it. Reducing online consumption can also combat fatigue and lead to less consumption overall, as spending too much time on our devices can affect our diet and cause overeating or junk food addiction; especially if our life is so cluttered that we don’t feel like we even have time to cook because we are so drained.

Our dependence on advanced technology and convenience is also the cause of excessive waste, because when we become reliant on technology to provide us with our basic needs, we are increasingly depleting the world’s resources in order to meet the high demand for more technology. Though it is a gift to be able to utilize such advanced resources for one’s personal benefit and use, it is also the case that our society cannot sustain itself without it, and so we are being driven by the need to consume more and more rather than make use of what we have already. Having control over our intake of technology requires time allocated to abstaining from it little at a time, and by doing so we can eventually become less dependent on it to fulfil our needs, leading in turn to less demand for more of it.

Wulf Willelmson