Archive | August, 2011

Decision Reached on Harmful Politicized Cults Around the World

From August 27 to 29, the Center for Inter-religious, Traditionalist, and Ecumenical Studies (CITES), in conjunction with RidingTheTiger.org, convened a conference to discuss the effects of sectarianism and political cults around the world.  Together, they issued a joint statement in which they condemned the sectarian motives of people exploiting religious principles to incite political instability. High on the list were the Falun Gong cult in China, the Baha’i cult, various New Age groups, and a number of Protestant groups in America.

RidingTheTiger.org member Dawud al-Sini presided over the joint investigation, which concluded that the aforementioned groups not only violate the teachings of all mainstream religions, they are effectively exploited to create civil unrest and political instability by liberal imperialists in order to destroy national sovereignty around the world and impose their version of sanctioned government on nations.  The cults in question were condemned not on only for the distortion of traditional religious teachings, but for the interference in the everyday lives of ordinary people.  Furthermore, the investigation noted that the origins of many cults are political in nature, and were created at the expense of true revealed religions to undermine the stability of societies around the world.

A close examination of the Falun Gong cult from a religious perspective revealed that it not only contradicts the teachings of Buddhism and Chinese beliefs from which it claims to be descended, but it also promotes blind loyalty to Li Hongzhi.  The ideas of Li are considered a bizarre departure from any rational approach to “qi gong”.

Self-inflicted damage, mental instability and suicide were being reported among the practicioners of Falun Gong.  Such findings are in agreement with years of research provided by experts such as Rick Ross and Margaret Singer, and also corroborated the same conclusions of the Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists to “face up to and denounce the cult Falun Gong jointly.” The discussions on Falun Gong were concluded by saying that while some actions taken against the group were heavy handed, the group as a whole is not an. As such, attempts to secure the wanton freedom of Falun Gong cultists under the guise of “religious freedom” is merely old propaganda using a new slogan designed to interfere with China’s internal affairs

Regarding the Baha’i cult, an expert witness, Dr. Ali Hassan Homayoun said, “The Baha’i cult is both heretical and a dangerous influence for the Iranian people regardless of background.” From its beginnings, Baha’i was a false teaching conceived as the antithesis to Tradition in general and Islam in particular. The creation of the false religion was also aided by foreign (particularly Russian, English, and Jewish) Marxists and atheists. While they claim they are a descendant of the Islamic faith, they reject the Prophet Mohammed as being the Seal of the Prophets, and reject belief in the Day of Judgement. Among one of the more extreme teachings of Baha’i is the “need” to destroy the Ka’bah and distribute its rubble throughout the world. The Baha’i have continued, ever since the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to endeavor to weaken and destroy the foundation of the Islamic Revolution, and have been actively involved in supporting Zionism and revolts against the Iranian government.

The Baha’i cult was also condemned for their endeavors to establish a one-world state with Baha’i as its religion.

Experts on the Christian faith from the Catholic Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, and Russian Orthodox Church also took steps towards criticizing the Protestant groups in America who mix politics and religion, and use the pulpit to promote Zionism.  Ultra-liberal churches were also criticized for the support of lifestyles incompatible with Christianity.  One member, who was also a representative of the Society of Saint Pius X, stated: “The 1,500 different cults under the umbrella of Protestantism constitute a dangerous threat to the spirit of real Christianity.  With widespread liturgical and doctrinal abuses, they are degenerating into circuses, and promoting political ends which are incompatible with our faith in Christ.  We must reject all things which are inconsistent with our faith and renew all things in Christ.”  Several Christian members agreed with this statement.

Posted in Site News1 Comment

Tradition, Antitradition and Countertradition

Tradition, Antitradition and Countertradition

Most people who are familiar with the giants of the Traditionalist school such as Julius Evola or Rene Guénon understand what is meant by Tradition according to these authors.  In this context, “tradition” has a meaning which is far removed from mere custom or folklore.  Instead, “Tradition” takes on the facets of something which is divine and eternal.  In a word, it calls man back to what Schuon called the ”transcendent unity”.  Tradition contrasts with modernity, whose sight is limited in scope, and concerned with quantity, not quality.  Evola describes the Tradition as embodying that which is “solar,” or “heroic” in nature, while anti-tradition is the direct antithesis of that.

Since Modernity is opposed to Tradition, there are two concepts that can be invoked in the description of modern life: antitradition and countertradition.  These may be perceived as the causes and effects of modernity.  In The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, René Guénon characterizes the antitradition as a mere negation of Tradition.  In other words, the characteristic symptoms of modernity, such as materialism, democracy, and secular humanism are a denial of Tradition, merely in the sense of failing to recognize it; they are  a deviation without actually becoming openly hostile.  Countertradition, however is a step further along the path of degeneration.  It is the satanic inversion of true spirituality, leading to the regime of Antichrist.

The two may be thought of as cause and effect, and is consistent with the principle of degeneration. The antitradition weakens and dissolves traditional spiritualities, after which the countertradition sets up a counterfeit in their place. Since Guénon’s time, as is well known, anti-traditional forces have greatly advanced worldwide.  The genesis of the anti-tradition, is within humanism, for as Guénon states, humanism “implies a pretension to bring everything down to purely human elements” (p 193). Guénon further goes on to posit that Protestantism and rationalism are further examples of the early antitradition.  Evola though, is more pessimistic and finds traces of the anti-tradition, which he equates with the presence of an ancient “Telluric,” or “southern,” civilization, in even ancient civilizations.  As an example, he cites the disentegration of the Aryan worldview as the concept of atman and brahman degenerating from a “formless, magical force” into a pantheistic concept which denied the existence of spiritual personality.

The Beginning of the End: For Western Europe, antitradition began with the decline of the Catholic Church

The manifestation of antitradition can be seen in all aspects of the Western world today.  Societies are crumbling, having lost direction and having rejected the aspects of a traditional society.  In political terms the system is democracy and secularism.  This system denies the existence of any divine cause, and regresses the castes in such a way that subjects him to be without a characteristic form.  The materialist outlook, whether it is capitalistic or communistic, is a system which is solely concerned with that of quantity.  Art, music, and culture are now the abstract expressions of soul-less individualism.  None of this is concerned with the spiritual betterment of human beings or any real human problems.  In America, the so-called ‘Land of the Free’, through every medium, man is told he has reached a degree of happiness hitherto undreamed of. He forgets who he is, where he came from, and basks in the present.

While antitradition is fully in force in the West, and has begun to spread to other parts of the world, we can already see countertraditional movements rising to the highest echelons of global political, economic, and religious power.  The existence of these movements would never be possible without the denial of tradition (i.e. antitradition).  The formations of such associations are allowing for a near-theological perspective on the tenets of the countertraditional society.  We can see such religious fervor in the way some in the West conduct themselves and view society.  As an example, there are certain groups which are now protected under the laws of the West, and certain histories, events, and concepts which the average person regards as canon.  In contrast to the anti-traditional attitude, which does not recognize Tradition, these new precepts are often diametrically opposed to the religious principles which, even 100 years ago, were at least paid nominal lip service to.

A clever disguise: In the absense of tradition, the countertradition can quickly take on many forms

At this point, antitradition manifests itself as a number of disconnected social movements.  Feminism, homosexuality, democracy, and liberalism are part of the transitional phase from antitradition to countertradition.  However, the countertradition will ultimately masquarade as a fully-fledged religion.  Both Guenon and Evola assert that the forces of “counter-initiation” are primarily occupied with cutting human beings off from the knowledge of anything transcendent, and then when this has been effectively completed, offering up a “parody” or “counterfeit” of the authentic initiatory experience “vitalized” by energies from the sub-human realm.  In the 20th and 21st century, many new religious movements have arisen: some of them are quite obviously draw their energies from chthonic sources, such as the various branches of Satanism or Luciferianism.  Some movements, such as modern Talmudism (which both rejects Christ and which is an inversion of the original principles of the ancient Israelite faith), are less subtle in their origins.  Still others are able to hide their nature as counterfeit spirituality, and are even being used by globalist powers to sow the seeds of conflict, such as Falun Gong or Baha’ism.

It is in the realm of countertradition, from which the prophesied Antichrist or Dajjal is to arise, because the Antichrist will superficially resemble Christ the Messiah, while doing the work of the Devil.  Thus, Tradition is not merely denied, but it is inverted, as per Guenon’s thesis.  This antichrist will seemingly provide for the needs of the people but deny them ultimate salvation.

For those worried about the coming counter-traditional world, Guenon gives us some words of hope, however:

between the fleeting reign of the ‘counter-traditiod and the final moment of the present cycle there can only be the ‘rectification’, which will suddenly put back all things into their normal place at the very moment when subversion seems complete, thus at one stroke preparing for the ‘golden age’ of the future cycle.

Posted in Religion2 Comments

The Curse of Egalitarianism

There was a time when Christianity was the religious dogma of the Western world. While the religion technically still exists, it has been usurped by new, modern values. One of these values, perhaps the most taboo to challenge, is egalitarianism. Instead of being told to praise an omnipotent God, we are told to praise our fellow man. We are told to celebrate “diversity” within societies, and indoctrinated to revel in the idea that all things may be correct, if only we look with open our hearts. Homogeneity, or the desire for it, has become a cardinal sin in the West. We might even say that egalitarianism itself is now a god.

A distinction must be made between legal equality and egalitarianism. While the roots of legal equality might not seem so sinister, egalitarianism is a highly destructive force. Legal equality implies the solidarity of individuals within a nation or a class, while egalitarianism follows the Orwellian concept that “some are more equal than others”. In other words, a system of legal equality is a codified method of judgment or rule, under which the ruler of a nation keeps order. In England, this was manifest as the Magna Carta, which codified the law and offered protection of property rights against corrupt monarchs. The Magna Carta offered legal equality because it bound all free English citizens to abide by it, without favoritism of any sort.

However, the devolution of legal equality into the creature we know today begain in the so-called “Age of Englightenment”. Today’s global hegemon, the United States, was founded during this period, and this new nation was more or less founded upon the roots of the egalitarian movement. This “Age of Reason” spouted out mass movements for “equality” and “liberty,” and on these principles were founded a cosmopolitan empire that was free and individualistic, and of course equal and diverse. Modern America has no real definition; America can be whatever one wants it to be. With the decline of the original Anglo-Saxon founding stock, there has been no one defining culture or identity. America has no common goal, but each individual individual embraces his so-called freedom. There’s no common goal; just the “freedom” to do what you want as an individual. The individual is king.

People are not innately equal, the law must make them so.  And it is within these laws which one finds a denial of truth, for truth must be denied if one is to accept equality as an absolute premise.  For instance,a worker or a farmer, or an intellectual, is invariably more useful than someone who subsists on welfare, but the State considers them to be absolutely equal, with an equal voice in the participation of government.  Developing nations, which need to rely on highly skilled individuals also realize that people are not equal when it comes to ability or intellect.  Yet the West currently is lagging in progress when compared to nations such as Iran, China, or Korea when it comes to intellectual and technical pursuits, because Western politicians focus on a vague concept such as equality, as oppose to ability or intellect, when it comes to selecting employees or members for a project.

We can say with safety that not all cultures are equal.  The European culture peaked in the 18th century, having brought forth the music of Bach, the paintings of Michelangelo, the science of Galileo, and the literature of Shakespeare.  Similarly, the Chinese, Indians, and Arabs, had also developed high cultures in their own times which are worthy of note.  It could be said what passes for culture among the Americans today, is by far inferior to the European culture of their ancestors, or any of the cultures of high antiquity.

With the rise of the holy individual came the dogma to protect it even from the slightest criticism.  Thus, it was only a short amount of time before feminism became a major force.  In the 1960’s, the protection of the individual became extended to homosexuals as well as blacks, and many other groups.  Affirmative action was also created to enforce equality.  In the last few decades, we have seen “hate crime” laws being passed, and even those who are fortunate enough to escape legal trouble are still at high risk for state-sponsored social outcast. After all, who are they to ignore the propaganda encouragement posters found in public buildings and public schools? throughout the West?

This dogma makes society into a two-dimensional narrative of victims and perpetrators.  Ironically, it has inverted the spectrum of society, making those who would otherwise fall to the bottom as pariahs become immune to criticism.  To make matters worse, we have a situation where the globalist governments and businesses gain support from these “victims”, and uses this system to their great advantage. After all, it is much easier for these people to manipulate nations that choose cosmopolitan equality, diversity and individualism over native Tradition and Culture.

This disease must be denied at its source. If we don’t reject this parasitic ideology, we are much farther from Culture and Tradition than we can ever imagine.

Posted in Society0 Comments

Mr. Obama of Amerikwa and Dr. Ahmadinejad of Iran

As the 2012 elections approach, the candidates of both American political parties are lining up to see who can best appease their masters.  A big issue, especially for certain lobbyist groups such as AIPAC, is how the next President of the United States will deal with Iran.  The major candidates, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, have already endorsed the position that military conflict with Iran may be necessary.  The Obama regime has not hidden its hostility towards Iran, by imposing sanctions in an effort to further cripple Iran’s economy, or by supporting anti-Iranian terror brigades.

So as Barack Obama attempts to run for a second term, it is only fair to compare to his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad or Obama: Who represents the interests of his people better?

In 2010, the Indian press reported that Obama would spend nearly 200 million a day on a visit to India.  During that visit, he was accompanied by a staggering 40 aircraft and six armoured cars.  Obama’s private car, a black Cadillac had the ability to launch nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks at the press of a button.  Furthermore, Obama booked all 300 luxury suites and 27 deluxe penthouses of the five-star Taj Mahal Hotel, at a rate ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 Indian rupees (450 to 900 USD) per night, and arranged a private excursion to the Taj Mahal.  James Corum, an American military historian pointed out, that the trip was largely a lavish publicity stunt, complete with an entourage that would dwarf the armed forces of even large nations.

On an earlier trip to Spain, Michelle Obama was criticized as being a “modern day Marie-Antoinette.”  During her vacation, an entire beach was closed for Michelle Obama and 40 close friends, for a price that cost US taxpayers a staggering $100,000 a day, not including the $147,563 which it cost to fly Air Force Two to and from the destination.  The American Conservative reported that:

Americans have come to expect Michelle to wear $500 sneakers and carry $2,000 purses while dining on lobster and caviar prepared by her personal chef and traveling to five-star hotels on the Spanish coast. They are used to her wastefulness — and her hypocrisy, considering the lavishness that occurs while the Obamas ask Americans to make sacrifices for the good of the nation, vacation on oil-stained beaches off the Gulf of Mexico, and have patience while the president socializes the economy against the will of the people.

Obama’s inauguration, the most costly in the history of the United States, cost the American taxpayers a whopping $170 million USD.  His other expenses include a black-tie Super Bowl party, dinners consisting of $100/lb Wagyu steak, and flying in a personal chef to make his pizzas.  And, in 2008, Obama hosted a series of 28 parties with over 50,000 guests.

All this while Obama oversees three wars, sending the working poor to die on false pretenses, and a crippling deficit of 14.6 trillion dollars, and while six million Americans lost their jobs during the Obama’s first year in office and retail sales fell 6.2 percent for 2009.

Enter Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the son of a humble village blacksmith, and President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  A civil engineer by profession, he gained popularity during his tenure as the mayor of Tehran by working to improve the traffic system and placing an emphasis on charity by setting up free soup kitchens for the disadvantaged.  Even as President of Iran, a nation of some 74 million citizens, he wanted to continue living in the same house in Tehran his family had been living in, until his security advisers insisted that he move. Ahmadinejad had the antique Persian carpets in the Presidential palace sent to a carpet museum, and opted instead to use inexpensive carpets.  African leaders, impressed by Ahmadinejad’s humility in daily affairs, noted that he refused the V.I.P. seat on the Presidential plane, and that he eventually replaced it with a cargo plane instead.  While Obama wears suits costing $1500 and up, Dr. Ahmadinejad, a former University professor, dresses in modest clothing, and insists on driving to the Presidential offices in his own car.

As president, he vowed to “putting the petroleum income on people’s tables,”, meaning tht Iran’s oil profits would be used to benefit the citizens.  Under Dr. Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran’s real GDP reflected growth of the economy, while inflation and unemployment have also decreased.

With all this, we might be prompted to ask – who is really a man of the people?  Which one is a true leader, and which one is merely an extravagant figurehead with no real concern for his citizens?  If being a competent leader who has a genuine concern for his fellow man and living a modest life is any indication, then the answer is clear.

Posted in Middle East, Politics, Society1 Comment

Postmodernism and the “New Left”

This article benefitted from the contributions of Lin Yu-han.

To liberals, almost everything everything is a social construct. Such people assume that things smply revolve around the given social environment rather than their inherent natures.  This allows for the liberal pseudo-intellectuals to engage in social engineering. After all, if these things are simply social constructs created by human beings than all you have to do is change the social construct and then you will have a new environment.

This is the type of ‘logic’ that liberals use on a daily basis and it is naturally irrational. The history of this ‘logic’ was first utilized in the 70’s when the cultural left infiltrated Western academia. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, was the first to propose that the Left should focus on social, rather than economic, change. This is why, since the 60s, many Western leftists abandoned the working class in favor of the political partisanism and social issues of their favorite minority groups (gays, women, non-Whites, etc). Unlike the Old Left, which advocated the rights of the Proletariat, the New Left has its basis in the intellectual output of an academia which has been infiltrated and hijacked by the petty bourgeois.

Antonio Gramsci: The intellectual forefather of the New Left

Postmodernism is simply one of the many insidious manifestations of New Left.  It includes the Frankfurt School’s critical theory, post-structuralist deconstruction, as well as Third Wave Feminism and Freudo-Marxism. Such ideas are not concerned with developing nations as a whole; they do not mobilize the people in a way to display the revolutionary spirit of self-reliance, and hence cannot solve its problems. In fact, the concerns of the New Left are not the concerns of most of the working class people around the world. Those in the first world, in fact, feel the effects of mass immigration of Third World migrants into their nations, which is promoted by the liberalism, while those in the Third World become the targets of economic exploitation.

The seemingly irrational character of this form of cultural ideology can be seen in the ways that leftists debate their opponents through what is called ‘deconstruction’. This form of argument holds that no ideas or words can be seen as objective truths since all ideas are simply social constructs used by a dominant culture to impose its will on those who are dominated. Hence, claim the postmodernists, these ‘truths’ have no legitimacy beyond the dominant culture, and are not true at all. By doing this, leftists cannot only avoid the debate by calling out their opponents as being part of this illegitimate dominant culture, they themselves need not even articulate an alternative to this because if there is no such thing as truth.

Wikiality Syndrome: Since nobody’s truth is inherently more accurate than anybody else’s, truth is made by consensus – but only if you’re part of the elite

For all this sense of nihilism that Postmodernism conjures up, it remains a heap of nonsense. Postmodernism and the other ideas promoted by the cultural left are not just false alternatives to the current decay of society, but rather a part and parcel of it.  For one reason or another, these ideas fit perfectly into the globalist framework of multinational corporations, big banks, and other forms of internationalism. Why? For one, multiculturalism is no longer a thing of the Left but promoted across the entire spectrum of contemporary society and also by large corporations (think of affirmative action) or by public schools with their curriculum of anti-racism and equality. In fact, its quite compatible to the marketplace considering that traditional cultures from across the world (other than one’s own) have become a commodity to appropriate and trivialize through its commercialization (New Age should come to mind when one thinks of these things).

The term ‘postmodern’ of postmodernism is actually rather misleading: a truly postmodern age would be one after modernity itself has ended. Today, we are nowhere close to these conditions since the mass psychosis and uncertainties inherent to modernity are still ongoing.  Postmodernism only makes these uncertainties and this psychotic episode even worse and for this reason, cannot be considered to be a sufficient alternative to it, indeed, postmodernism itself is a product of modernism and this point should be emphasized.

The only authentic alternative is to take a Revolutionary Conservative path which is strongly grounded with Traditionalism, and which refutation of all the aspects of modernity and its products. If sometime in the future we can make this alternative viable, then and only then will we finally have a real alternative to the mass psychosis of contemporary society.

Until then, we simply have to weather this crisis.

Posted in Politics2 Comments

Recommended Reading and Listening

A while ago, Ray Wilson and J. Aage Ulriksen wrote about Breivik being a decoy Nationalist.  The Southern Nationalist Network has also published an article on a similar topic: ‘Counter-Jihad’ fake nationalism.  It is worth a read; his perspective is unique and he explains it eloquently.

Other Recommended Reading:

American girls suck! - by Charlie Bushmeister of inmalafide.com

Civilization types – by Brett Stevens of amerika.org

Recommended Listening: Twenty six Variations on La Folia de Spagna, by Antonio Salieri

Posted in Other0 Comments

Men and Women, Then and Now

From a biological perspective, there are innate characteristics that differentiate men and women.  Such characteristics are in themselves realities of physical form, and assign to each of them a different role or function in life. This means that men cannot replace women in carrying out these functions, nor can women replace men in other functions.

In the context of high antiquity and the Traditional world, and far removed from any biological determinism, the masculine and feminine are viewed as complementary yet distinct.  Guenon notes that to the Aryans, the puruṣa (पुरुष) is the masculine entity of the impassible spirity, while prakṛti (प्रकृति) is feminine in nature.  This concept re-appears in the Chinese tradition of yin and yang and the system of trigrams and hexagrams which comprise the I-Ching.  The hexagram which is purely yang, the male principle is composed of two trigrams signifying heaven, to produce the hexagram signifying ”the creative,” while the hexagram which is purely yin, the female principle is composed of to trigrams signifying the earth, producing the hexagram which means  ”the receptive”.

In Revolt, Evola discusses the ideal man as the warrior-ascetic.  The warrior is no mere soldier, but rather a heroic and sacral persona who embodies the principles of virility.  If the warrior-ascetic represents the active side of the heroic nature, then there is a passive sort of heroism to be found within the feminine nature.  This is to be found in the nurturing role of a wife and mother.  As Evola explains:

In the case of women, the actions of the warrior and of the ascetic…correspond to the act of the woman totally giving herslef and being entirely for another being, whether he is the loved one…or the son, finding in this dedication the meaning of her own life, her own joy, her own justification.  This is what bhakti or fides, which constitute the normal and natural way of participation of the traditional woman, really mean.

Motherly love: the classical idea of womanhood

The Traditional idea of man’s relationship with woman recognizes the complementary nature.  However, the Traditional outlook recognizes the self-evident maxim, now somewhat forgotten in modern times, that women are females and men are males.  The outer label of “woman” is the designation for the interior identity of a female, and the outer label of “man” is the designation for the interior identity of a male.  In other words, a woman has a created nature which has assigned to her a natural role different from that of man.  However, at the same time, man himself is vital to the fulfilment of the female and, even in death, acts as a mystical doorway for his counterpart. This key traditional component is vigorously expressed by committed Hindu women who leap into the flames of their late husband’s funeral pyre in order to secure immortality for themselves. The Incas also believed that women should follow their husbands into the afterlife by committing deliberate and well-intentioned acts of suicide.

Such ideas, naturally conflict with the modernist idea that a woman should overtake the role of men in society, and that “rights” would supersede the relationship of the two sexes.  Evola once again describes the rise of feminism:

In a society that no longer understands the figure of the ascetic and the warrior; in which the hands of the latest aristocrats seem better fit to hold tennis rackets or shakers for cocktail mixes than swords or sceptres; in which the archetype of the virile man is represented by a boxer or by a movie star…or the busy and dirty money-making banker and the politician – in such a society in was only a matter of time before women rose up and claimed for themselves a ‘personality’ and a ‘freedom’ according to the anarchist and individualist meaning usually associated with these words.

Here, we may infer that modern feminism is not possible without the degeneration of men in the first place.  Indeed, once the Ghibelline ideal faded from the face of Europe, it was only a matter of time before monarchies degenerated weakling states and aristocracies of the spirit were transformed into aristocracies of wealth.  From here, it was only decades until the notion of democracy, complete with the trappings of the Kali Yuga, would reign supreme.

Once the appex dissapeared, authority descended to the level inmediately below, that is, to the caste of the warriors. The stage was then set for monarchs who were mere military leaders, lords of temporal justice and, in more recent times, politically absolute sovereigns. In other words, regality of blood replaced regality of the spirit. In a few instances it is still posible to find the idea of “divine right,” but only as a formula lacking a real content. We find such rulers in antiquity behind institutions that retained the traits of the ancient sacred regime only in a formal way. In any event in the West, with the dissolution of the medieval ecumene, the passage into the second phase became all-enbracing and definitive. During this stage, the fides cementing the state no longer had a religious character, but only a warrior one; it meant loyalty, faithfulness, honor. This was essentially the age and the cycle of the Great European monarchies.

Individualism run amuck

Then a second collapse ocurred as the aristocracies began to fall into decay and the monarchies to shake at the foundations; through revolutions and constitutions they became useless institutions subject to the “will of the nation,” and sometimes they were even ousted by different regimes.  And what was the result on the relationship between men and women?  In such a society, feminism caused women to lose their personality.  Indeed, rather than exalting the true femininity, it forced women to adopt an imitation of the male personality, while ironically, it became opposed to masculinity.

Yet it was not here that modern feminism stopped, for where Traditional ideas had at least allowed man and woman to be equal, while fulfilling different roles in society, modern, radical feminism posits the superiority of women to men, and in so doing, transgresses all the boundaries of nature.  As Kenneth Minogue notes, “Radical feminism is essentially a humorless rationalism which seeks a single right attitude to be imposed on men and women alike.”

In the end, modern woman, subjected to feminism, will be affected by the neurotic complexes wrought by modernity.  All this cannot but have a dire consequence on the generations to come – not just on women, but on families and men as well.

Posted in Society5 Comments

Modern Stoicism

By the Will of The Destroyer and The Creator

It is becoming unquestionable as a result of common knowledge bolstered by media that our societies have entered a decline.  We are looking at an uncertain period of transition in which—for Americans—we will remain relevant, but no longer the sole dominating force in world affairs.  Like Rome and Greece we find ourselves overburdened with our Pax Americana which followed after Pax Hellenica and Pax Romana.  The differences are there in that we do not annex other countries outright, but instead impose political restrictions, and through our popular culture then mold their own cultures and conception of us.  Even in the so-called anti-American nations, American products, “freedoms,” and way of life are held in high-esteem through an emulation of sorts even if America’s presence and policies are hated.  Nevertheless, what is to be said is universal to all western cultures whether European, American, or Hispanic.  The era of western power as the sole driving force of history as taught may very well be ending.  This shift in power is going to be a cause of economic, social, political upheavals.  Denial is useless and serves no one, even the blind political structure sapping countries of life as it has become unsustainable in its quiet corruption.  With surveillance increasing political activism has also become costly and dangerous: an option only for those who can deal with the consequences.  For those willing, non-political, yet not wanting to be conquered by the state of the age Stoicism finds new relevance.

Was it worth it?

            Once a major philosophical school of thought, Stoicism commanded great esteem in the very past empires we believe to model our nations after.  After some research, it will be revealed that Stoicism is not just philosophy as it is rather religious in character, but remains more a “way of life” than anything else as a person can be Stoic regardless of the state of their belief or non-belief.  Primarily, Stoicism teaches a person to be strong, courageous, calm, and composed: to not be swayed easily by emotion, events, nor by the consequence of the person’s being.  To simply exist and not compromise in virtue and morality become the marks of high character.  In a word it is a form of self-discipline.  This all seems quite simple on the surface, and it is, yet remains a great difficulty in practice.  However, this becomes a matter of worth considering as social elevation and stature, wealth, political and social rights, and general transparency once considered a birthright—if it ever existed all—have decayed.  The veil of illusion over the reality of our own selves is lifted: our true worth is not what we thought it to be in the eyes of the greater society.  We are part of the world in which we are parts, not the central force many of us want to be.

We are nothing but dust in a great void.

The appeal of a modern form of Stoicism becomes rather clear in uncertain times in which we feel as if we are being swept away.  The erosion of our rights and privileges is combined with an ever increasing hostile control makes us feel powerless, and we very much are.  Our human dignity, however, is not something that can be stripped away unless we let it happen.  Does such a notion hold weight with the masses of people concerned more with pleasure?  Of course not, but some deserve a measure of sympathy and compassion simply for knowing that there is something better even if they cannot find it.  The traditionalist is a person who despite their means is a person who wishes to imbue his soul with nobility.  There are no aristocrats but those who have sought to find ascension in their souls.

A Stoic Man, an imperial archetype for all to aspire to: peasant, bourgeois, wealthy.

To be stoic is something both simple and complex.  It requires cultivating and conditioning not of the body, but of the soul.  Soldierly and martial stoics may also condition the body, but it is not a prime factor in being a stoic.  The serenity of the sage, a virtuous life, is not attained simply by doing good works, but by finding clarity devoid of extremes of emotion.  One must be ready and willing to accept what has been ordained or doled out to them by the Will of Divinity: fate, in a word.  If it happens to you, it was meant for you.  If it happens to you, you can handle it.  It is the anticipation of an unfortunate even that is worse than the event itself.  Fear … is often a prime motivator in control by hostile parties, but fear is still that same factor preventing us from finding our place and developing as men.  Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Zeno, these were real men who used courage, dignity, and intelligence to overcome their obstacles.  In the case of the former, lacking the power to prevent a greater decline, a great legacy applicable to combat, human relations, and other struggles was passed down through the ages.  Learn how to be an imperial Stoic from Aurelius’s Meditations and Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic.  Our age mirrors those of the past in many ways.  Go … be a man.

Posted in Current Events, Society2 Comments

The Rise of the Secular Theocracy

Webster defines “theocracy” as the government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.  Throughout high antiquity, theocracy, in one of many forms, was the standard, rather than the exception.  The rulers of Rome were the embodiment of a regal spirituality; in Tibet under the Lamas, political power became concentrated in the priestly class, who functioned as much as religious leaders, as they did as political ones. Evola, in Revolt Against the Modern World idealizes the “Olympian ruler” or Chakravartin, as the wielder of power and one who is divinely inspired.

In modern times, the church is either removed from any visible participation in the State, or it is governed and restricted by the State.  In other words, a sign of modernity is the overwhelming restriction being placed upon faith, in order that politics can dictate moral decisions.  In the process, divine guidance  is replaced by secularized theological concepts.  The end result is the creation of a secular theocracy, whose proponents are as zealous and imposing as any theocracy has ever been.  Modern existence is thus a contradiction in which any transcendent source of power is removed, yet there is a certain quasi-religious character.  While they do not claim a divine entity as their inspiration, their zeal is such that they believe their ideals to be unquestionable and infallible.  Indeed, if it was necessary to decry the kingdoms of Old Europe as being inherently tyrannical as a result of having imposed the unquestionable law of “divine right,” then the so-called democracies of the world too, must also be considered as such, and must be condemned even more forcefully.

Here we must pause and define the religion of this secular state.  As the notion of a “secular theocracy” is at once an inherent contradiction that implies a faith without revelation, so to is the society which arises from it.  In the secular theocracy, heresy against God becomes deified and the undifferentiated man becomes upheld as the example of individuality and uniqueness.  The modern state, possesses its own dogma and code of ethics, as well as a way in which it is promulgated in society.  In the political cults of many states, there are creation stories and formative myths, and many actions can be explained as a contrast between good and evil.  In other words, the ideas established by political consensus operates in order to replace the Church or another religious authority.

“Acceptable” in today’s society…

The most sacred tenets of this secular theocracy are ideas such as materialism, egalitarianism and feminism; its Heroic Epics are the lurid tales of persecution such as the Holocaust, with artificial heroes like Elie Wiesel; its sacred scriptures the countless pages of dreary and bureaucratic legislation; its rites are the mundane trips to fast-food restaurants or malls, where citizens worship at the shrine of quantity.  At the core of this modern world’s morality is the notion of “freedom” and the acceptance of everything that was once considered immoral and indecent.  And all these ideals are today as unquestionable to the common mind as the notion of geocentrism was in the time of Ptolemy; the heretics of secularism are those who profess opposition to its vapid values of “tolerance” and “inclusion,” or those who don’t accept the official histories and dogmas.  And like the religious empires of the past, liberals in what Guenon termed the “Far West” have never given up at bringing this new faith to other lands.  As the conquerors of old, they have attempted to transplant their denomination to the far-flung corners of the globe.

Israel Shamir points out that there are multiple ways of interpreting the problem of secular theocracy.  Its ultimate manifestation is liberalism, which as Shamir states, can be interpreted either as a secular Protestantism a là Max Weber, or as a secular Satanism.  However, he ultimately rejects these theses as being incomplete, and concludes that liberalism is secular Judaism.  Says Shamir:

[I]t is only natural that the ideology they promote is so close to Jewish heart. Its adepts retain classic Jewish attitudes; and the “uniqueness of Israel” is a tenet of this “non-religious” school, whether in the form of the “unique” Holocaust, or a “unique” attachment to Palestine, or a “unique” love of freedom and diversity. Indeed, while mosques burn in the Netherlands and churches are ruined in Israel, no emotions are stirred up in comparison to those set in motion when graffiti is written on a synagogue wall. The US grades its allies by their attitude towards Jews. The Holocaust Temple [“Museum”] stands next to the White House.

Destruction of the family at the hands of radical homosexuals

Certainly, if modern society is representative of “secularized Judaism,” then it is a rejection of Christianity.  And perhaps, this is why the media, in an effort to disguise the fact, claims a so-called “Judeo-Christian” origin for today’s society.  Where Western European society had historically been based on Roman Catholicism, the Emancipation of the Jews required a paradigm shift into which the Talmudic ideology was slowly but surely normalized.  Whereas before Judaism was a rabbinical the rejection of Christian doctrine, formed after Christ, Judaism — including the Talmud and its brazen hostility towards gentiles — was now incorporated into the ordinary faith of Europeans.   Thus, as long as Europe was Christian, they were able to maintain a semblance of a traditional society.  But with the rise of the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revoltion, and subsequent historical events, this society was consumed entirely.

We need only look at the progression of events to realize the damage that the secular theocracy has caused: the denial of majority group rights and fragmentation of societies, the attacks on the cultural foundations of the peoples around the world, the promotion of homosexuality and feminism at the expense of families, and the fading of care and compassion.  Secular theocracy, along with liberalism and democracy have ultimately failed to produce the utopia that its propagandists claimed that it would create. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.  Such people are sure to be the vanguard in the fight against the tyranny of fundamental secularism.

Posted in Society1 Comment


    Leave a Comment

  • Stay up to date

  • Subscribe to the RSS feed
  • Subscribe to the feed via email
  • Follow us on Twitter!

Find us on Facebook

Traditionalist Books


More books...