Rejecting false dichotomies has become something of a vice in 21st century American discourse. The saccharine song of ‘third way-ism’ from Christian pulpits, the ‘third position’ of dissident politics, and the alleged moderation of President Joseph R. Biden all promise a chance to reject both options deemed undesirable, whatever those options are.
But despite all this, there is a certain wisdom in rejecting dichotomies. The sons of America have thus far endured sermons spreading the gospels of two rival political heresies, those being Prussianism, and Bolshevism. These are not particularly new, as the prophet Lothrop Stoddard wrote nearly a century ago,
“Ninteenth century materialism spawned two great heresies, the heresy of the overman, and the heresy of the undermen. The heresy of the overman flowers into Prussianism, the heresy of the undermen flowers into Bolshevism. Both are deadly to our civilization. Prussianism would send us sabre rattling back into the gorgeous barbarism of Assyria; Bolshevism would suck us down into the slattern savagery of the Congo.”1
The latter is well known to us, with its grip on media and education, whispering sweet nothings in our ears about ‘the need for equality’, or ‘the dangers of white supremacy’, promising that if only we give them the power they seek, they will level the playing field. They of course leave out how what they mean is they will level America. This is the impulse animating the enemies of the sons of America, enemies whose reach is long.
But I believe that the competing heresy of Prussianism, too, earnestly seeks to lay claim to us. Bronze Age Pervert, the Claremont Institute, Curtis Yarvin, and many other eminent voices on the American right tell us that what we need is strength, that we must abandon liberalism, that a la Evola we must ‘revolt against the modern world, and return to tradition’. The interwar German political movement, much maligned in the organs of the Bolsheviks, takes its place tenderly in the hearts of these disciples of Prussianism.
The two successive world wars tore at Civilization, and the Bolsheviks emerged more powerful from both. In the same essay, Stoddard wrote
“The great war was, of course, a great boon to the undermen. The writings of Lenin and Trotsky in its early days mirror their terrible glee. They realized that, even though completely victorious over its Prussian assailant, civilization would emerge from the battle so bled, dazed, and tired it might fall an easy prey to the onslaught of a second foe.”2
‘So why did you fight them?’ Our friends, in Prussian spirit, might ask us. These wars were fought on behalf of Western Civilization, its banner carried by the Anglosphere as it has been for these last several centuries, to ensure that both the opportunity, freedom, and prosperity of liberal rule might be passed down to new generations. This probably sounds trite to many, which demonstrates on its own the great strides the two heresies have made in our homelands. But make no mistake. The despotism of a strongman, of Prussian efficiency, is no less despotic than the Bolshevik menace we link arms against.
For well over a thousand years, long before the formation of the United States, our people have been obsessed with the idea of self rule. They have fought, bled, and died for it in a hundred wars and a thousand battles. The liberal tradition, easy to malign though it is, still carries this great spirit of self rule and daring adventure. It is no mistake that the twin heresies join forces in denouncing ‘Anglo-American colonialism’. Our particular tradition of Western Civilization, our liberal tradition, is one that has served as one of the greatest forces for good the world has known.
But both Prussianism and Bolshevism find this self rule hateful, and so both have been fighting it for well over a century now. But as for us, the sons of America, we must reject both, if our patrimony is to endure. If our children are to have a chance at self rule, then we must self rule, and we must reject both Prussianism and Bolshevism.
Lothrop Stoddard. "Bolshevism: The Heresy of the Underman," The Century Magazine, Vol. XCVIII, 1919.
Ibid
I appreciate this. I have noticed an emerging cohort of voices rejecting the strongman, Caesarist position as the way forward. I think it is notable that the things under attack in our current moment are not the preconditions for Prussianism but the tenets of self-rule. The left would probably respond to an actual strongman with the same histrionic behavior as they responded to Trump but seem significantly more threatened by the tradition of self-rule.