Grundsatze der Hallerismus: Towards a Hallerist Manifesto.

Part One: The Whys, Wherefores, and Hows.

WE indict the existing social order, the great "Liberal democracy", as a farce and a fraud, an empire of lies built on a foundation of sand; a monstrosity, a Satanic abomination hateful to God, Nature, and Man, at once pathetic and terrifying, all in all the very worst thing to ever have been inflicted upon the human race. Among its vast black catalogue of injustice and infamy:

-It promises to guarantee the enjoyment of inalienable rights of Man- and then proceeds to alienate these rights every chance it gets, and as a matter of principle. Nothing stands outside the purview of the administrative State, nothing above its omnipotent scrutiny, nothing beyond the reach of its tentacles. Personal freedom is choked. The subject of individual rights finds himself swaddled in bureaucratic red-tape from head to toe, to the point of complete immobilization. His person is monitored and surveilled at all hours everywhere he goes or stays; his every action is subjected to proscription and regulation by innumerable legions of administrators and technocratic planners; and his every thought and utterance policed and censored by a swarm of ideological fanatics, party hacks, "activists", and unpleasant HR ladies, right down to the smallest minutiae of language. This order boasts that its State exists for no other legitimate purpose than to protect the citizenry in person and property- and then sets thugs and murderers loose on city streets to terrorize that very citizenry with impunity, bringing the power of the State to bear only when citizens attempt to defend themselves against this predation, even though self-preservation is held to comprise both an inalienable right and the very foundation of the legitimacy of the State itself. And the "rule of law not men" this order touts so ostentatiously sees the laws weaponized by men in order to punish political enemies (in what's supposed to be a "democracy") and reward friends and client groups, while injustice is visited without redress or relief.

-It promises civic unity, social solidarity, and respite from the solitary life of an asocial "state of Nature" it purports to have abolished- and then does everything in its power to tear asunder and dissolve every natural tie that binds human beings to one another. It teaches people to fear and despise one another, to see nothing but abuse and oppression in the most intimate, affectionate, and solidary of human relationships. It turns women against men, children against parents, youth against age, subordinates against superiors, weak against strong, countryman against countryman,  and all the races and peoples of Man against each other; it incites discord, division, resentment, and suspicion where none existed before; and it incessantly subdivides the populace into an infinity of new special interests, factions, and "identities" to create even more social strife. Behind its sounding rhetoric about "community", We the People united as one, One Nation Indivisible, etc. ad nauseum there stands a sordid reality of urban anomie, alienation, and isolation; of incels, barren cat-ladies, and random hookups; of over-politicized online partisans looking for a sense of belonging in cheerleading on behalf of some political party that doesn't even know they exist, and ready to turn against friends, family, and neighbours- that is to say, social ties of real substance- out of allegiance to an imaginary political community; and an ocean of atoms trained to fear and despise one another, seething with neurosis, petty jealousies, and resentment; sociologically predictable results in pandemics of criminality, addictions, mental illness, anti-depressant use, self-mutilation, and suicide.

-It makes a fetish of individualism and "diversity"- while at the same time demanding unrelenting lock-step conformity and expending incredible amounts of energy in efforts at homogenizing and standardizing the population which see the individual force-fitted onto a Procrustean bed of dull faceless mediocrity, the uniqueness and particularities of his being dissolved in the statistical averages against which he is measured, and into as close an approximation as possible brought by an army of teachers, therapists, physicians, administrators of standardized tests, admen, propagandists, and the producers of mass-market consumer goods and arbiters of mass consumer preferences and tastes, along with a vast women's auxiliary, all of them marching under a banner of democracy and the conforming of the particular will and judgment of the individual to the General Will of the democratic majority. The same individual whose individuality and "diversity" is to be celebrated is constantly exhorted to self-abnegation and self-effacement, to be a good team player, go along to get along, yield to the will of the group and the majority, and freely sacrifice his wants, his aspirations, and his freedom to a "common good" defined by others, the better to habituate him to an insectile life in a human beehive where everything is done by the committee and the bureau and nothing by the creative individual, who must be depersonalized accordingly

-It teaches men to scorn nature and natural social arrangements in favour of the artificial, to view the very essence of all progress in terms of leaving nature behind, and the essence of all improvement in supplanting the works and laws of God with those of Man. It teaches that man-made surrogates, substitutes, and imitations are superior to the real thing; that the Natural order instituted by the Divine can and must be made to yield to human fancy and fantasy, such that it is now an article of public doctrine that an autogynephilic man becomes a woman the second he says he is; that the immutable and eternal laws of Nature are so many mere constructs and conventions that can be abrogated at will by social engineers, and reality a Protean substance that can be given any shape our technocrats and activists think it ought to assume. It decries acquiescence to the nature of things and its corresponding laws as intolerably odious and oppressive, as servile and beneath the dignity of a free people. No wonder that freedom is now sought in rebellion against the human body itself, in the public cult of polymorphous perversity, the mania for defacing, deforming, and mutilating the body, the exaltation of morbid obesity induced by senseless gorging on processed and artificial foods loaded with industrial toxins, and that most liberating practice of them all whereby expecting mothers slaughter their own children in the womb. Finally, the hatred and rage against nature also finds expression in: the sexlessness and disdain for procreation that presently threatens whole peoples with extinction; hatred of women by men, and men by women; cruelty to animals; wanton destruction of natural habitat; and a generalized hatred and scorn for life itself.

We could continue.   

But, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Liberal order is dying and will soon be dead, already sick, senescent, and on its deathbed. Erected in ignorance and open defiance of the social laws of nature, it will collapse and come down as surely as some unsound structure designed by a derelict civil engineer too stupid or arrogant to bother to conform his plan to the physical laws of nature. And just as the unsound concrete structure, once ruined and abandoned, is soon overgrown with new plant life and reclaimed by Nature, so too a new growth of natural social relations will spring up over the ruins of the artificial mechanical Leviathan. Nature, who always has the last word, shall vindicate herself; she will bring healing and reconciliation to our people; and the Liberal empire of darkness and hate will give way to the natural order of love and benevolence instituted in the beginning by God, but thence abandoned by modern Man in the manic throes of his hubris, delusion, and unreason.

As men of intellect, we will do our part to hasten the impending collapse of the great Liberal experiment in democracy and assist in the rebirth, re-humanization, and re-naturalization of social relations by chastising this hubris, curing this delusion, and correcting this unreason. We are called to fight evil with the weapons of the mind, above all those of science. We are chosen to serve as the teachers, tutors, and, so to say, therapists of Mankind. We shall simply seize intellectual and spiritual authority from the existing ideological apparatus and its functionaries, just as they themselves usurped it from the Church centuries ago. The human race will be our student, to whom we will teach the difference between right and wrong, and impart the wisdom of the great sages of the past, as well as our own; our patient, who we will reason out of the delusions and the self-defeating patterns of thought and behaviour that hold him back; and our congregation, which we will exhort and recall to virtue, religion, and right living with fire and brimstone. We will instruct rich and poor, great and small, Statesmen and private citizens, and men of every social station on the true nature of their rights and duties; and we will bring about a sea-change in consciousness as great as the one that originally led European peoples into the abyss in which they have sunk ("the Enlightenment"), failing which they will never find their way back out, and remain doomed to run in place on a treadmill of ignorance, error, and deceit. Restored to their senses, the scales fallen from their eyes, they will be able to see a way forward that had been hidden from them in plain sight, in a blind spot created by Liberal ideology.  

I have just induced a knee-jerk reflex of anti-intellectualism in those on the political Right who think the answer is to buy more guns or lift weights six days out seven (when in absolutely no tactical or strategic position to resort to force); who make all sorts of big plans for seizing State power (that everybody knows they aren't going to act on); daydream about returning to the glories of a romanticized barbarism and a life of rapine and plunder, or a romanticized Feudalism (when as far removed from the martial way of life and agrarian economy as they possibly could be); continue to wager their hopes on some political party, some candidate for office, or some mass political movement (no matter how many times over they are cruelly disappointed by the perfidy of democratic political parties and politicians, or the apathetic stupor and infant-like helplessness of democratic mass publics); or something else, so long as it doesn't involve thinking, or instructing others.

This congenital anti-intellectualism of the intellectuals of the Right, with their vicious proclivities to false consciousness and misrecognition of their proper role in the social scheme of things, to siding with, and appropriating the class position and stance of, every social class or category against their own, be it warriors and aristocrats (for the Nietzschists), Statesmen (for the various partisans and history buffs), capitalists (for the Libertarians), or the proletariat (for the Populists), is an enormous contributor to the now centuries-long history of impotence and failure of the Right. Ever-given to LARPing and aspiring to be something they're not and can't be, they end up betraying themselves and their fellow man. Derelict in the performance of their actual role and duties, namely the production and explication of formal knowledge and its transmission to others, they simply forfeit intellectual and moral authority to the Left- for its part, and from the very beginning, savvy enough to grasp what Rightists never can: namely, that those who provide instruction by definition direct and regulate the action of those who receive it, and that by extension the men who teach and counsel those who wield the sword or the purse are the socially paramount authority, and not the men of arms or affairs, who inasmuch as they cannot provide for their own guidance necessarily occupy a subordinate role vis-a-vis intellectual-moral authority, no matter how much wealth they possess or troops they command (a principle explicit in the social structure of the great Aryan empires, all of which acknowledged the paramountcy of the spiritual power over the temporal).

The intellectuals of the Right, hoping to be taken as tough guys or Statesmen online, devote their energies to glorifying warfare and violence, or pontificating on the minutiae of economic or foreign policy they have no hope of actually influencing, and in so doing, leave it to an assortment of journalists, lecherous yoga instructors, Communist professors and schoolmarms, self-help gurus, scheister lawyers, psychotherapists, unpleasant HR ladies, sex-fiends, race-hustlers, and other miscreants to authoritatively interpret the difference between right and wrong and single-handedly define public morality for the entire country. And then they turn around and wonder how it possibly could have come about that the respectable upright bourgeois now believe that uttering a racial slur or failing to use somebody's preferred pronouns is a crime worse than murder; that any sex act or proclivity is decent, so long as it can't possibly lead to procreation; that those children whose mothers see fit to allow to live should have the right to have themselves castrated at whim; see no problem with sexual fetishists attempting to entice toddlers into their subculture in public places, but think religious youth who reject casual sex and yearn for romance and a loving family life to follow are a grave danger to society; and learn and recite the fine points of an ideology that starts from the premise that Marxism isn't radical enough, and that all White people must be dispossessed and killed, as diligently and earnestly as their forebears once learned and recited articles of confession now replaced by the likes of Critical Race Theory. It's not without justice, then, that the Right has collectively earned for itself the sobriquet, "the stupid party".

Another, catastrophic long-run failure of the Right, which allowed the nascent Left to emerge triumphant and thenceforth easily fend off a congenitally feeble and confused rear-grade resistance, was that, with the sole of exception of Haller, it was never able to mount a defense of traditional and natural social relations in terms of a doctrine: a set of propositions that are explicit, general, clear, distinct, rigorous, logically consistent, and unified under a set of overarching first principles into a formal system that is self-sufficient, invulnerable to being reduced to or subsumed by the propositions of any other such intellectual system.

The main reason for this is that natural social relations generally aren't the object of sustained philosophical reflection or formalization, but emerge spontaneously and subsequently are regulated and perpetuated by customary laws whose legitimacy derives from tradition, habit, and immemorial usage, and from religion. These customs are relatively inarticulate and implicit, followed without anybody putting much thought into it or having to spell it out (much like the informal etiquette of day-by-day social interaction, itself a type of customary law), and generally made explicit only when they are broken or contested and it befalls somebody to pronounce the law in an official judicial determination.

Modernized and technically-minded urban people, who earn a living from technologically sophisticated and highly complex activities whose competent performance cannot be left to feel and habit, but must rely on explicit, unambiguous, and systematic written instructions, and are given to constant innovation and improvement in technique, consciously reflect upon and question what they do and why they do it the way they do rather a lot, and are hardly willing to take "because things have always been done that way", or "because God ordained it so" as an answer. In any case, the continuity of custom and tradition is subject to fatal disruption by the migration from country to city, with the result that the old ways are altogether lost or no longer applicable in the urban milieu, leaving everybody to start anew- this time around, though, from a determinate plan worked out on a drawing-board.

In this milieu, Liberalism came on to the political scene armed with precise and explicit blueprints for the artificial political machine and artificial social order it wanted to erect, in an elegant, rigorous, and highly sophisticated theory of law and politics that, from a set of explicit premises, could easily be made to give authoritative-sounding answers to just about any question concerning the origin and nature of law and the State, their purpose, how laws ought to be framed and States constituted, what powers States have, what policies they ought to pursue, what the respective rights and duties of rulers and citizens are, etc. etc. The effortlessness with which this juridico-political theory convincingly purported to answer all questions and solve all problems on rational grounds predictably led it to catch on like wildfire, achieving, by the 18th century, a level of social penetration and dominance so total and so absolute that even its opponents, themselves no longer willing to just refer everything to Divine right or past usage, wound up borrowing its language and its precepts in a decisively fateful way that saw them try to vindicate the legitimacy of traditional and natural forms of government in the terms and on the grounds of an ideological framework designed from the ground up with the intention of uprooting and destroying them, speaking a political language not their own, and doing it clumsily, ineffectively, and with a thick foreign accent. (Everybody is all too familiar with how this same losing game plays out today: Democrats are the real racists; transsexualism threatens hard-won LGB gains; affirmative action is contrary to the sacred Liberal value of equality; etc. ad nauseum). What came to be known as Conservatism sought to escape Liberal conclusions by way of appeal to Liberal premises, and thus found itself trapped in a closed ideological circle of presuppositions in which any forward movement leads right back to the starting place, as though a hamster-wheel. This also accounts for the characteristic failure of will that through the centuries has over and over seen the Conservatives resist the historic leftward drift feebly and half-heartedly, or not all. For will doesn't exist independently of idea here. The Conservatives, intentionally or not, pledge fealty to this ideology, and its corresponding State and social order, every time they speak or borrow from its language. Their attempts to manipulate this language see them end up being manipulated by it, and by its true native speakers, the Leftists, to whom they always defer at the end of the day. They defer only grudgingly, to be sure; but sooner or later they do defer, every single time. They are reduced to treating morality, rights, and natural social relations, not as goods or valuable ends in themselves, but so many mere useful instrumentalities for helping the Leviathan meet its own policy objectives. The family, property, religion, gun rights, and so on are good things, the Conservatives say- but only because they save money and make public administration easier for the very administrative State that from the start and by design tends towards the erosion, or outright obliteration, of all those things, as well as the incessant blimp-like inflation of its own size, scope, and powers.

It never even occurs to the Conservatives to question, let alone challenge the legitimacy of, this State and the culture and way of life that accompanies it. They uncritically accept the Liberal claim that the only choice is between this specific form of State (as though no other ever existed, or is even possible) and no State at all, a mythical Hobbesian "state of nature" or total anarchy, and so are reduced to congenitally failing and self-defeating attempts at reducing the size of the Leviathan (various fantasies about operating a "small government" in a State apparatus engineered for explosive growth), or otherwise somehow preventing it from doing what it was painstakingly designed to do (i.e. destroying religion, morality, the family, and all natural social relations). Had they simply done their homework right and bothered to actually study its blueprints instead of simply taking it for granted, they would realize the utter futility and folly of this endeavour (which is about as realistic as hoping to cause cats to stop saying meow or water to flow uphill); had they called it into question, they would realize that, far from somehow being universal and necessary, far from its taxes being as certain as death in this world, it is a recent and extreme- indeed, unique- aberration in the annals of human history.  

And to the extent that the Conservatives attempt to ground such defenses as they may make of natural social arrangements in principles that defy their very existence, they end up bested time and time again, effortlessly and in an almost tragi-comic way, by opponents on the political Left who are much more consistent and diligent in the application of those same principles, and fearless when it comes to drawing all the perfectly logical conclusions that follow from them. The Conservatives, who continue to make a public confession of the likes of All Men are Created Equal™, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness™, Government of The People By and For The People™, etc. find themselves at a loss for convincing words when the Leftists quite reasonably conclude that:

-achieving meaningful equality not only- and necessarily- entails abolishing every social hierarchy and every social distinction, above all between male and female, youth and age, as well as the family unit which serves as the primordial locus of those distinctions (as Feminists such as Shulamith Firestone irrefutably argued), but also all inequality of wealth and property between racial and other groupings, regardless of how that wealth and property was acquired (and there is no gainsaying Critical Race Theory on this point).

-the pursuit of happiness legitimately encompasses every morbid shade of polymorphous perversity, so long as it does not cross the utilitarian threshold of "harm"- or, more precisely, if Leftist activists and corrupt academic "experts" can convince legislators that it doesn't.

-since this great government of "the people", Our Democracy™, according to Liberal constitutional theory, enjoys legislative, judicial, and police powers that can find no limit outside itself , and can legitimately restrict or abrogate the rights of the individual at will and by fiat, the State may legitimately expropriate private property; "re-distribute" wealth acquired by perfectly lawful means; tax and print fiat money at discretion; subject children to mandatory indoctrination (no matter the contents) and separate them from parents who object; persecute Christians and political dissidents; legalize drugs and all sexual perversions (including pedophilia); shut down entire cities and economic sectors indefinitely during what it deems "pandemics"; decline to prosecute violent and sexual offenders while bringing the full terrible force of the law on citizens who resist their predation; etc. to infinity,

-and a bunch of other stuff the Conservatives don't like one bit, but can't object to without making themselves look insincere or morally derelict (as they do every single time they critique the proposals of their opponents as impractical while simultaneously affirming the moral desirability of the ends towards which they aim- for what kind of a person sacrifices morality to expediency?), or just plain dumb ("the stupid party"), unable to add two and two together or see what every thinking person can; clinging to long-obsolete iterations of Liberal ideology while rejecting state-of-the-art upgrades such as Critical Race Theory which comprise obvious technical improvements over so-called “classical Liberalism” from the point of view of means-end efficiency and effectivity (e.g. CRT proposes concrete and sophisticated policy measures (“equity”) to actually make equality a material reality, instead of just re-hashing empty slogans such as “all men are created equal” with no real-world substance and leaving it at that; here the Conservative opponents of “antiracism” put themselves in a position akin to someone who says he likes sausages but doesn’t like the idea of somebody actually making them).

Finally, it goes without saying that confessing the same fundamental articles of faith as the Leftists, albeit applying them in a transparently inconsistent and inefficient way, makes bullying and browbeating the ever-defensive and apologetic Conservatives as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, as it also does infiltrating and then commandeering their organizations, and weakening their morale and resolve to the point of paralysis (e.g. by manipulative appeal to "principles" defined entirely by the Leftists, and that they would never dream of observing themselves).

We reach two major conclusions from the foregoing:

-The political Right, with all its shades and brands, should be brought to an end. Conservatives, it has justly been observed, haven't conserved anything in what is now four centuries since they first made their appearance in modern politics, and the mainstream no longer aspires or even pretends to (altogether renouncing the effort to conserve morals and natural social relations as so many irrelevant "culture wars" that distract from truly important matters like adjusting rates of interest and such). Since democratic political participation in the present conjuncture can no more avoid speaking the ideological language of Liberalism than it can speaking English, it follows that such participation is an inherently Left-wing activity that makes Leftists of its participants in spite of themselves, or willingly- for, in the prison-house of Liberal language as in penitentiary, the weaker inmates (Conservatives) get turned out by the stronger (Leftists) and sooner or later learn to acquiesce to their role as catamites for the latter (controlled opposition).

We accordingly call for a complete retreat from all political participation, above all, withholding active or passive support for democratic political parties and public figures, and withdrawing into intellectual spaces of learning, study, and reflection (beyond unproductive commentary and debate on passing ephemera of the day), first condition of all successful future action. Again, the political Right earned its storied legacy of failure through an anti-intellectualism, as contemptibly imbecilic as supremely arrogant, which reasons that you should just go out and "do something" without knowing what you're doing or what you're talking about at all. Moreover, as the Liberal constitutional order presently undergoes another of its characteristic periodic mutations into an authoritarian one-party State (as it did in the past when it shifted into such of its alternate modalities as Communism, National Socialism, Fascism, etc.), "doing something" without quite fully understanding the something you do it to can be very, very dangerous (as the Jan. 6 protesters learned, the hard way). In any case, as far as public discussion goes, at a time when the morals of the people keep growing worse, and what is held up as "morality" more and more deranged and depraved, preaching the true moral law and calling others to real virtue does more good than playing armchair strategist or whining about the latest Woke outrage ever could; and counseling others to avoid evil and do as much good as possible isn't illegal yet. Finally, the existing political order, already condemned by the laws of nature to perish, simply cannot be reformed or saved, and moreover neither need nor should be.

-We intend to cut the Right loose from Liberalism's apron-strings and win it intellectual sovereignty once and for all. Hallerism is a war of intellectual and doctrinal independence that will, so to say, decolonize the Right and secure for it an intellectual territory of its own, with impregnable borders, under a territorial authority that is independent, final, and acknowledges no higher authority outside itself, and an irreducible, self-sufficient and self-validating corpus of laws that depend on no outside norm for their authorization. Under this Sovereign authority and this Sovereign body of law, the various struggles that between them have historically defined the Right, but hitherto been disparate, scattered, and disunified, always giving rise to divergent cliques, sects, and schisms (Reaction, Nativism, Vitalism, Libertarianism, Legitimism, Populism, etc. etc.) and attending, destructive factional conflict will be united in the peace and concord of a great harmonious synthesis. Everybody will come to see that the struggles for, variously, the sanctity of religion and the family; the distinction between man and woman, and for a life fit for a true man against the suffocation of all his vital forces in the womb of hive, pod, and longhouse; the continued existence of European peoples, the preservation of their traditions, and a future for their children; property, gun, and other private rights of freemen, and corresponding strict limits on the power of the State; public order, discipline, and observance of the moral law natural and Divine against urban chaos and polymorphous perversity; sound money and fiscal prudence; the rightful personal rule of legitimate Princes of Monarchal States against "democratic" usurpers, and the legitimate political-civic rights of tax-paying, property-owning citizens of Republican States against oligarchic usurpers and their client classes of aliens and domestic criminals and parasites; and many more, are mutually-dependent and inextricably bound together, as inseparable from one another as the shadow from the body.

Now, the laws that bind all these particulars together as one, to be sure, aren't arbitrary man-made commands, the diktat of some cult leader or party Central Committee, but laws of Nature explicated in the abstract by formal reason and then validated by experiential evidence- that is to say, scientific laws in the sense of modern empirical science, specifically, political science. For Hallerism does not intend to counter ideology with more ideology still, content to merely substitute one set of chimeras and empty fictions for another, still less to co-exist alongside Liberalism as a mere alternate brand, as though Pepsi to its Coke. Our intellectual sovereignty must entail sovereignty over Liberalism too. We intend to conquer and annex its own intellectual territory, plant a flag of truth there, and tear down its temples of error and delusion; and this can only be done by a fully-fledged science competent to name an ideology as ideology or pseudo-science and then, from an independent and sovereign analytical position over and above ideology, subject it to the light of scrutiny, identifying and rejecting its errors while (in the case of Conservatism, Libertarianism, and other Rightist provinces and tributaries of the Liberal ideological empire) retaining and raising whatever is valid or salvageable in it to the level of scientificity.

Our political science, though, rejects the so-called "fact/value" distinction by way of which Liberal social science, through its superficial understanding of the nature and epistemology of naturalistic empirical science; its inferiority complex vis-à-vis the physical sciences and corresponding, pathetic efforts to compensate with ostentatious but meaningless shows of "objectivity"; its facile positivistic opposition between "is" and "ought" (as though all "ought statements" are wholly speculative and detached from the real); and its utter ignorance of the nature of the different types of natural laws and causal forces in the material world (including the very ones they are supposed to study) and their interrelation, shies away from all questions of right (disdaining mere "philosophy" as beneath the superlative dignity of a "scientist"- a most laughably Philistine pretension) and so condemns itself to impotence and irrelevance in the pages of academic journals even academics don't read. Our political science, by contrast, is also a philosophy of right that will serve as the formal grounds of the constitution and legal systems of the restored natural social order to come, in exactly the same way Liberal juridico-political ideology serves that purpose for the artificial Leviathan-system we have now. This new juridico-political order erected on the foundations of political science, unlike the Liberal order, will be solidly grounded in reality, in sound knowledge of the nature of men and things as they really are, as opposed to the chimeras, fictions, and ruses of ideology- which in their willful ignorance of reality and the violence they do to it in theory and practice doom the State based on ideology to a bad end already at hand.

This all sounds like one tall order, preposterously, even impossibly, ambitious, a Herculean labour all of us put together couldn't hope to complete in our lifetimes, and justly so. How fortunate for us, then, that Providence in her tender loving care has seen to it that a Great Man of the past, Karl Ludwig von Haller, already completed it for us, leaving only the light work of reviving, explicating, propagating, and applying it. This human Titan, this Prometheus, has lit for us a torch of invincible science; we need only take it up, rally around it, and hold it high so that its bright flame can illuminate the way out of a dark and awful place about to cave in on itself.

(Part Two to follow).