We shouldn’t be surprised by the idea of cyclical civilization. Every Traditionalist culture has had some concept of it: the Aryan Indians and Persians, the Chinese, the Celts. Eccesliastes 1:9 reads “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”
Even Ragnarök doesn’t end existence completely, for Balder and Hod resurrect after the destruction and rule a new world in the highest heaven; Gimle, which is repopulated by the young couple Lif and Lifrasir, “Life” and “Stubborn Will to Live.” When religious traditions are viewed through their esoteric lens, we come to see that when the End Times are described, rather than become fearful or mopey, we should see it as a natural wake-up call for civilization.
Let’s now look at how America compares to Rome. Most of us probably know the story about how in 1066, the Normans (a Viking-descended nation settled in France) conquered England, displaced much of the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, and instituted strict laws and a sort of caste tradition above the native English population. FYI, the legends of Robin Hood and his Merry Men aren’t so much just about a good outlaw who steals from the rich and gives to the poor, it’s more a tale of resistance, about a band of Anglo-Saxon rebels who take to the forest and perform guerilla raids on the Norman occupiers while providing for the now en-serfed Anglo-Saxon population. It reflects more the concept of a race war or an ethnic conflict than a class war, as it has come to be seen by modern audiences. I am not saying any of this to bash the Normans. Plenty of people have conquered plenty of others, and the Normans displayed the ideals of a traditionalist, masculine, and religious warrior race. The Normans can be seen as role models in many ways, and by modern times, most English people of Norman descent are also quite Anglo-Saxon, as many Normans attempted to legitimized their claims to England by marrying into aristocratic English families, and the laws of inheritance amongst the British nobility allowed for only the eldest son to inherit his father’s land and/or titles, resulting in many younger “surplus” aristocrats intermarrying with the common English population.
But having said that, in many ways we can see America as an Anglo-Saxon break-off from the Norman aristocracy. Since most of the upper-echelons of Anglo-Norman society were set for life in Britain, the vast new lands of America attracted the Anglo-Saxons who had more of a reason to leave, along with the younger disinherited sons of the Norman nobility. This started in the early 1600’s, and then by the 1770’s, with nearly two centuries away from England and direct Norman rule, the American colonists had developed their own culture and identity and declared their independence. They were essentially a unique people with an English-Germanic root. There were still immigrants, people from all over Europe would come over in small groups, often just individual families. They would learn English, give their kids Anglo names, maybe even Anglicize their family name in some cases. Because there were no huge immigrant communities, a newcomer had to learn to assimilate fast. Two of the greatest heroes in American history (real American history, not the history of the “progressive” Babylon that usurped its name), Andrew Jackson and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson (no relation) were of Irish descent, and one of them, President Andrew Jackson, fought tooth and nail to prevent international Rothschild banksterism from getting its fangs into the young United States.
It seems to me that the Founders also took a few pages from the Greco-Roman world. Aside from a sense of God-given Providence, they also, like the Athenians and the Romans developed a class of educated patricians, usually ship or plantation owners, formed an unofficial nobility in the country, held the highest offices, and generally decided the direction of the nation. This elite wasn’t entirely set in stone as to who could be a member, Benjamin Franklin was the grandson of an indentured servant, but just like becoming an accepted American, becoming part of the nation’s patrician class took time and education before one could fully assimilate.
America’s Founders also would not today be called liberals, libertarians, or probably even conservatives, at least not in the modern understanding of those terms. The news network Russia Today has a segment called “the Resident” hosted by a woman by the name of Lori Harfenist. I disagree with her negative tone about them and her liberal stance, but she spoke about America’s seven “official” Founders: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Jay, and James Madison, and how they held many authoritarian, elitist, and racialist views that are quite contrary to the views of modern libertarians, conservatives, and liberals.
A person could argue that it was a different time and people held all sorts of views back then, and I would agree, and if you yourself are a liberal, libertarian, or conservative and want to use some parts of the ideology of the Founders as an example of something you approve of, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that; most ideologies come from blending bits and pieces from other ideas that one may not fully agree with. But if we’re talking about the original United States in its initial years of the 1700’s, most of its founders were of a Traditionalist mindset. The excerpt can be found on Youtube under “The Resident: Enough Founding Fathers Crap,” (as I said while I agree with the facts she presents I don’t agree with the overall tone), where she describes how, for example, John Adams was an admirer of monarchy and hereditary aristocracy, while Alexander Hamilton was an elitist who had many ideas that could be seen today as similar to Fascism. I don’t agree with all the things that the Founders did, like George Washington imposing a whiskey tax in order to defeat his competitors in his whiskey distilling business, or John Jay’s attempts to institute a law that would prevent Catholics from holding office (Jay was a descendant of French Huguenots who were persecuted by the Catholic monarchy in France, so that probably had some influence on his opinions), but it at least shows that the Founders weren’t anarchists, or egalitarians, or haters of organized society. They weren’t opposed to using law and government to impose their worldview. America’s founding was less about some sort of social experiment where everyone could just come and do whatever they wanted; it was much more about founding a new civilization and beginning a new lifespan in Spengler’s cycle.
After a while though, materialism started to flourish. Perhaps it came from too loose wording on things about freedom and democracy that have been taken out of context, as some interpretations of Scripture have been latched onto by egalitarians and other anti-Traditionalists. Or maybe the Constitution and Scripture aren’t actually that easy to misinterpret, rather, subverters always find a way to present their views as if they’re in line with Traditional institutions. As America, like Rome, became more and more decadent and focused on materialism, so the national character changed.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism. Capitalism is simply recognition of private property and the right of a person to make a living off their private property through trade, or using their own personal God-given talents to make a living for themselves. The problem is when an economic system, whether it’s capitalism or socialism, becomes an ideology. Leading a nation is sacred work, the Nation is an organic reflection of the soul of its people. To let something as profane as money, or people whose only talent is in making money, govern the Nation is anti-Tradition. For those of us Traditionalists who are Christian, remember, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s ,“ as well as “Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise!”