Author Archives | dawud

The Bahá’í Faith: An Indictment

The Bahá’í Faith: An Indictment

A common theme in the philosophia perennis adopted by some Traditionalists is that of the “transcendent Unity of all religions”.  This perspective had its origins in the inter-war period, and was first discussed by René Guénon in the 1920′s, and, a decade later, in some more considerable detail by Frithjof Schuon, a Swiss-born metaphysician.  In this line of thought, one might be tempted to believe, or even convinced, that the Bahá’í Faith is somehow a perennial belief system.  Indeed, on some level the Bahá’ís do claim that they embrace the teachings of Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Sakyamuni Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad and, most recently, the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh.

Many Bahá’í documents, as well as the exponents of the Faith, attempt to cast this cult in such a light, by establishing it as the next “big idea,” which will establish not only a world religion, but a world language (currently deemed Esperanto) and a world government (to be administered from the Israeli city of Haifa).  But, as far as this religion goes, even the Bahá’í admit that, “what ties Bahá’ís together is not acceptance of a set of theological proposals – which the fundamentalists and liberals will always disagree about – but rather loyalty and obedience to a central figure or institution,” and that, “ because the Bahá’í Faith is of relatively recent origin, it has been able to take on board many of the features of the modern world” [1].

With this said, what follows is not intended to be a refutation of the entire Bahá’í religion, but rather, an attempt to discuss and expose some of its modernist aspects.

If one has an incorrect understanding of Traditionalist thought, only then would it is possible to ignore that Bahá’í Faith is fully ingrained in the modernist way of thinking, and that because of its relative youth, it is an ideal belief system. This is,however, no more sensible, than if one might regard American democracy to be an ideal government because of its relative recency and all-inclusiveness.  Preaching the unity of all religion, the Bahá’í faith claims to encompass the teachings of Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Sakyamuni Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad and, most recently, the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh. Because of this, they have deceived Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and other practicioners of the Traditional faith, alluring them towards themselves.

If one believes the Bahá’í claims, one will think that Bahaism is the latest universal religion with superior omnipresent laws that supercede all others. From an exoteric point of view, one can draw similarities to it. At the very core of the Perennialist philosophy is the idea that there is a single body of truth known as the perennial wisdom which human beings have known from a very early point in history. Yet, this is where the similarity ends. While Bahá’ism strives to combine all religions in a single ‘melting pot,’ Perennialists and Traditionalists are able to see the value of other religious systems while staying within orthodox boundaries. Moreover, Bahá’ism in itself tends to contradict the thermodynamic principles of Traditionalism. Evola himself rejected the “myth of progress,” and recognized the process of “slow obscuration” from the Higher giving rise to the Lower. Baháism, however itself makes no attempt to hide its revisionist nature, and even stakes a claim to fame that it is a religion especially made for modern times. Thus, the very nature of Bahá’ism is self-contradictory; while claiming to be a part of tradition, it significantly tries to obscure and distort it.

It is also important to understand the origins of the Bahá’í. As stated before, Bahá’ism was a false teaching conceived as the antithesis to Tradition in general and Islam in particular. The creation of the false religion, first created by a Persian heretic, was also aided by foreign (particularly Russian, English, and Jewish) Marxists and atheists. This can be seen in the destructive, amoral doctrine of Bahá’ism itself. Bahá’u'lláh claimed not only that he was a Prophet that exceeded Muhammad, but also that he was the incarnation of Allah, and is thus guilty of what Islam calls shirk (associating partners with God).  These two ideas alone put him far outside the mainstream of monotheistic and Islamic thought.  In other places, they claim that,  “in creation there is no evil, all is good. Certain qualities and natures innate in some men and apparently blameworthy are not so in reality.” This, in essence, was a license for moral inequity and moral relativism, having rejected the previous framework of distinguishing between what the Muslims called halal (lawful) and haraam (forbidden).

One of the early aims of the Haifan cult was to strike against Islam and create political and spiritual instability in Muslim societies. They also reject many verses of the Qur’an because they believe that the Muslims have distorted them. They also reject Hajj and want to destroy the Ka’bah and distribute its rubble throughout the world. Also, a study of the Aqdas in Arabic and English will reveal that nowhere had Bahá’u'lláh prohibited sodomy and homosexuality. This leads one to believe that had he actually completed the law, he would have made sodomy and homosexuality permissible and actually encouraged it. These example, as well as countless others (some of which are explained here) make it clear that Bahá’ism is nothing but a false teaching which merely appropriates exoteric Islamic concepts in an attempt to undermine Islam.  This persists even today, when the Bahá’í have become the favored minority of the liberal West seeking to undermine the Islamic Republic of Iran!

The Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel. According to some Baha'is, the UHJ is to be the future seat of a one-world government

When Bahá’u'lláh’s creed was introduced to the West in the 20th early century, it became the darling of the Marxists and feminists because of its ideology, and in 1986, with the sanction of the Universal House of Justice, the American Association for Bahá’í studies would convene a meeting to “to help Bahá’ís understand Marxist principles”.  Thus, in the West, the some of the Bahá’ísm developed very much along culturally Marxist lines, as the “original” ideas in Bahá’ísm were developed further, and taken to extremes.  Hence, those ideas were gradually reinvented by naive Western do-gooders into a social program that masqueraded as “faith”.  In turn, these new concepts soon permeated through the rest of the Bahá’í faith, transforming it into what we know of it today.  Even if we give Bahá’u’lláh the benefit of doubt by assuming he had honest intentions, today’s Bahá’í Faith is has devolved into a litany of externalist and worldly Marxist goals, like secular world government and feminism.

In essence, the purpose of the Bahá’í faith is like that of the communists of the 20th century or American imperialists of the 21st century: to spread all over the world and to be governed by the commands of a single elite group. Like the aforementioned, they wish to create a single world empire with a single world culture and language and abolish race and culture in favour of their devious ideology.

Posted in Most Recent, Religion0 Comments

The importance of learning martial arts

The importance of learning martial arts

In today’s uncertain world, the necessity of physical self-defense cannot be denied.  Modern cities are by no means safe places, and crime is on the rise every day.  As anybody who’s lived in a dangerous urban environment can attest to, you can’t always wait for the police to come and defend you in an emergency.  Even when there are police around, they may be corrupt, incompetent or unwilling to do anything.  While some — especially the politically correct types — might say that violence is always wrong, this line of reasoning only works with rational, peaceful, law abiding people; you cannot count on street toughs, thieves, or would-be killers to be rational, law-abiding or peaceful.  Therefore, no matter how much you might dislike it, there may be a time when you have to fight.  In such tense situations, whether confronted by a common street thug or with other enemies, one needs to be ready to fight in self-defense as a necessary condition for his own survival; you need to be prepared to take on criminals, especially when your life depends on it.

A handgun can get you out of a difficult situation - but they are harder and harder to acquire

If you live in America, especially in a rural environment, or a locale where it is easy to purchase, store, or carry a firearm, this may be a good idea.  You should always become proficient with using your weapon, so that you won’t accidentally shoot any innocent bystanders.  When carrying a firearm, you should always do so within the confines of the law, so as to avoid any complications later.  However, firearms laws are becoming increasingly strict, and many states have made “concealed carry” impossible, especially in urban centers.  Despite this, one needs to be ready to fight in self defense as a necessary condition for his own survival.

Martial arts have been used for thousands of years all over the world for self defense, and learning one or more styles of self-defense can be quite useful when you’re on the street and have to face a potential attacker unarmed.  While this is not always a guarantee to protect you from any everyone, at least a quick jab to the nose or similar attack can can do so much slow him down, and at least buy you some time to run away.

If you do decide to learn a martial art for self defense, it is best to choose something practical.  Which style “works” for you is ultimately up to a number of factors such as your build, musculature, and personal preference, but various world armies have developed systems, such as Special Combat Aggressive Reactionary Systems (used by the American military) or Systema (used by Spetznaz), which can be learned via video, if you have no other means of learning them.  Boxing can also be learned in a short time and can be made useful in a fight.  While the various Eastern martial arts can also be effective, they suffer from a lack of decent experts in non-Asian countries, and as a result are mostly taught in the West as sports or as health regimens, and not for fighting.  While this kind of martial art is good for building self-discipline, it may take years before one is proficient enough in the techniques to fight effectively.

That said, self-defense and fighting ability are not the be all-and end-all of martial arts.  Herein lies a fundamental shortcoming of the purely exoteric system of fighting: while it can be said that there is a certain masculinity to fighting, people often take the wrong attitude towards fighting and can become too aggressive.  Self-defense is an indispensable skill,  it is also wise to be able to avoid danger in the first place, or learn how to negotiate with a would-be thief to diffuse a hostile situation.  To quote Sun Tzu’s Art of War: “To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

In this regard, some of the traditional Eastern systems hold sway over the Western ones. In this manner, the properly taught Eastern martial arts in some ways, are remnants of ancient initiatory rituals.  In ancient times, the study of the codified martial arts (as oppose to mere ‘street fighting’) made high demands, and to join a lineage of martial artists often invoked the mystical world.  In others, martial ability was part and parcel of being a perfected gentleman: in ancient China, archery was considered to be a gentlemanly pursuit alongside intellectual endeavors, with the arrow and the target being the very symbols of the path to achieve super-human states, which the warriors were actively occupying and then transcending.

While this is not applied today in its original form, the historical origins of Eastern martial arts belie a certain asceticism of action not found directly in many Western martial arts.  Properly done martial arts demands a willingness to confront interpersonal human aggression directly, developing the habit of taking the initiative when confronted, not being intimidated, and the habit of meeting the challenge presented by a committed aggressor with the determination to prevail.  At the same time, a martial artist needs to avoid becoming a bully who jumps into unnecessary conflict.

Thus, it can be said that it is necessary in the Eastern tradition to embrace both the inner world while defeating the outer world, whereas most Western arts merely pass on exoteric forms of punching and kicking.  It is true that the esoteric component of the Eastern martial arts are quite far removed today, but they are even further obscured among the Western fighters.  For example, there was certainly a method of unarmed physical combat practiced by Greeks (“pankration,” a combination of boxing and wrestling), but did Greeks practicing this believe that they attained a level of spiritual development through it? Certainly in the Olympics it was consecrated, but it is doubtful if such consecration encompassed the actual action itself or the search for intuitive knowledge and enlightenment (samadhi and satori) such as we practiced in the East.  An exception to this might be the presence of the Catholic military orders of the Middle Ages, which can be regarded as the pure distillation of the Ecclesia Militans into physical action.

In pursuit of this goal, the Eastern traditions have come to encompass a wide variety of training methods that improve the body and mind, and the best coaches and instructors train both the mind and the body.  They aim to develop focus, self-discipline, and balance.  To perform at a high level in martial arts you have to embrace, accept and ride the wave of anger. You become intimately acquainted with fear, frustration, anxiety, and loss of focus. Unlike in life, in martial arts you have a way to learn from those experiences and you have the opportunity to accept them as a natural part of discovery and learning. Most importantly, you are allowed to display these emotions as a man in a martial arts environment.  The experience should at once be cathartic and energizing.

Whether you choose to undertake a study in martial arts purely for reasons of self-defense, or for other reasons, you will be well-rewarded if you are willing to invest the time and energy.  This breadth of training requirements, and the level of intensity that can be achieved in martial arts, rarely coalesce in a single activity. The range of potential effects are so vast, leading one researcher to suggest the martial arts are a potentially-rich source of research for psychological fields including perception, attention, problem-solving, pattern recognition, and consciousness.

Posted in Culture, Most Recent0 Comments

An Interview With a Former Falun Gong Member

An Interview With a Former Falun Gong Member

The following is an interview with a 24-year old female student who was a member of the Falun Gong (Falun Dafa) group.  Falun Gong, which can be translated as “Law Wheel Practice”, is considered by its followers to be a spiritual discipline.  It was first introduced in China in 1992.  Western academics have described Falun Gong as both a “spiritual” movement, as well as new religious movement (NRM).  Other scholars, such as Rick Ross, have considered Falun Gong to be a cult.

For personal security reasons, the interviewee has requested to remain anonymous and that her picture not be shown.

Q: Can you tell us about your early life at home?

A: I was born in New York City, but shortly after I was born my parents moved to California and took us there.  For the first few years of my life, I was raised as a Christian. We went to church regularly and I learned the Bible every Sunday, as well as being taught by my parents. My parents were rather religious, and had always wanted to go to China as missionaries to spread Christianity. In addition to myself, my younger sister and brother also attended church with the rest of us. I generally consider my childhood to have been happy. My parents were hard-working, and I enjoyed the company of my siblings.

In 2001 my maternal grandmother came to live with us. She was a Buddhist and usually did not go to church with us, but she respected our religion and said that when it comes to religion, people should just try to be the best person they could be.

Q: How did you first learn of Falun Gong?

A: In 2004, my parents “discovered” Falun Gong after reading pamphlets in a Chinese grocery store. At this point I was also becoming more aware of my Chinese heritage, and so I thought to myself “why not?” and I also embraced Falun Gong as merely a type of exercise. I was unaware of the political situation behind Falun Gong at the time. I just wanted to learn about my roots and because they advertised this as something which as part of our Chinese culture, I decided to try and become more involved.

Q: Can you recall some early experiences that lead you to question Falun Gong?

A: To make a long story short, the first time I had questions about Falun Gong was when younger sister had the flu, and they would not allow her to

The Central book of Falun Gong, "Zhuan Falun" : A compendium of vapid mock spirituality composed of a bland pastiche of 'Eastern' occult doctrines

take medicine. She was only three years old at the time! At this point my parents and I had already read Zhuan Falun, and I was convinced that my sister’s illness was related to not being sincere enough. In fact, I had stayed home from school for days at a time to engage in what Falun Gong calls “sending forth righteous thoughts”. As a result, my grades suffered. Before, I had been an honor student and had been among the top five students in my school. After this, I fell down to being a very poor student and nearly flunked one semester. My teachers became genuinely concerned and asked me what was wrong, but at the time I didn’t tell them.

It was likely that this left a big effect on me, and I tried to focus more on my studies. However, I didn’t leave Falun Gong since I was still at my parent’s house. They were very devoted to it and I felt that they would punish me if I went back to church.

Q: So your parents didn’t go to church after getting involved with Falun Gong?

No. In fact, they told me it was not useful because Li Hongzhi had once said that all different races have different heavens. Hence, they abandoned being Christians. Some people think you can be a Falun Gong practitioner and a Christian. My own experience in my house told me that this is impossible. They try to get you “in” by telling you it’s just exercise and qigong but you don’t learn about it being a religion, and you won’t learn that “Master” Li Hongzhi is really the savior of the world until much later.

Also one very strange thing is that my parents became very paranoid of other people. The Church we had attended was mainly a Chinese-American church. Every Sunday, there were three services given by three pastors in Cantonese, Mandarin and English. My parents even tried to accuse the Mandarin-speaking pastor, who was a very good man from Taiwan, of being someone who persecutes Falun Gong and works with the Chinese government. I was truly stunned. This man was the guy who was a devout Christian, a Taiwanese-American who had never set foot in mainland China. He was the last person anybody could call a persecutor of anybody, much less some sort of agent of a communist government.

Q: Since you mentioned politics, what was your opinion of the political situation back then, and what’s your opinion of it now?

When I was still a member of this cult, I read a lot of persecution stories about the members in China. I understand now that some may have been exaggerated so that we could develop an “us-vs-them” mentality. And it was also used in some way to legitimize us. Since we were told that the Chinese government was evil, how could we, the victims be wrong? This is actually a well-developed trick. Just look at the Israelis – since the Nazis persecuted them, they tell people they can never be wrong. I think the Falun Gong’s logic was much in the same spirit, applied back to religion.

I think you might have read about Sujiatun in the papers. Well after that report came out, Harry Wu, a famous dissident felt that the evidence was insubstantial. American officials also investigated the hospital and found no evidence that it was being used for organ harvesting or detaining prisoners. Only two Canadian researchers, out of everyone in the world, found “evidence,” which was mainly gathered by people who reported to be there.

Of course there are still political problems. Although I’m not involved with Falun Gong any longer, people still have the right to practice what they wish, even if someone else views it as wrong. However I do not necessarily think that many of them are political. Even ordinary Chinese people who don’t have any affiliation to Falun Gong are sometimes imprisoned by the government.

Li Hongzhi is the omniscient and omnipotent savior of the world, according to himself and his followers

Q: You stated that you started to question Falun Gong after your schoolwork suffered. Can you say what happened after that?

A: I actually was a Falun Gong “practitioner” until I entered University. At that time I had been involved fully with a lot of its activities. I honestly thought that Falun Gong was teaching me ‘Truthfulness, Benevolence and Forbearance’. Unfortunately because I wanted to achieve “consummation” by practicing Falun Gong, I graduated from high school with only slightly-above-average marks.

The University which I attended, surprisingly, had a Falun Gong organization, and to my surprise it was mostly populated by those of Caucasian descent. There were many other religious organizations, including other religious groups.  Because of my contact with other students, I was able to talk about other religions. I remember when some Christians approached me. They were knowledgeable and respectful, but I felt angry every time they would criticize Falun Gong or the “Master”. Similarly, when a Muslim student asked me if Li Hongzhi can die, I didn’t respond directly but mocked him for being narrow-minded and obstinate. I often became angry at those who were critical of Falun Gong. I remember thinking that anyone who was against Falun Gong was evil. People at the Falun Gong organization also agreed.  One boy even went as far to call non-practitioners “filthy demons” and said that it’s okay if they are “destroyed”.  At that time, I was truly frightened and it lead to me doubting Falun Gong, but I was still afraid to leave.

Q: How long was it before you finally left?

A: I It took me many months to get the courage to leave Falun Gong.  I think the final straw was when I went home one winter for vacation, I realized my grandmother was not well, so she needed to see a doctor.  But my parents refused for her to have such treatment, since Li Hongzhi claimed that when you fell ill, neither injection nor medication was needed, you would recover simply by reading the book and doing some exercises.  Unfortunately my grandmother’s condition worsened, and although it was quite obvious that medicine was needed, my parents still adamantly refused.  From that point forward, I decided to analytically look at Falun Gong better to realize its weaknesses.

Q: What steps did you take, once you finally decided to leave?

A:  By the time I had realized Falun Gong was a cult, I felt the need to leave.  I had realized that Falun Gong misuses terminology, and creates special meanings to words in order to fool people into thinking this is some kind of spiritual practice.  So, I had already made my mind that I needed to get away somehow.  I had to seek protection from the people who remained members.  Also, although it was painful, I had to also stop communicating with my parents because they were still so fanatical about it.

Slowly, I was able to rebuild my life.  During this time, I enrolled in some religion classes, and also read about 40 books in one year on the topic of religion.  I started to learn more about various religions and investigated each one carefully by reading their books, and also third-person literature about them.

Q: How are your parents now?  Are they still with Falun Gong?

A:  Yes, they are still in the cult.  It makes me quite sad to think about it every day.  They were upset at me for leaving Falun Gong but I think that they are still good people inside.

Q: What progress have you made in spiritual or religious terms since then?

A:  I am still deciding.  I know I believe in law and order, but also in treating people with respect.  Finding your path, and becoming a better person is a process which takes time.  When you leave a cult you can’t rush into the first thing you find.  You should be perceptive and patient with yourself.

Right now, I know I believe in God.  I’m taking that as the starting point, and I pray that He will help me through these troubles.  In terms of a particular religion, I have not made up my mind.  I do have a general idea of what I want: an authentic spirituality, a connection with something greater than myself, a sense of direction and morals.  Isn’t that what real faith is about?  At this point I am leaning more towards Orthodox Christianity or Islam.  Those are the two religions most appeal to me because their message is beautiful, clear and concise.  I know it seems strange for a Chinese-American woman, raised in the United States, in this day and age to think about converting to Islam, but in fact I read a lot about Islam from both Islamic and secular sources, especially by writers like Ivan Aguéli, Réné Guénon, Hossein Nasr, Martin Lings and Titus Burckhardt, who converted to the religion.  As far as Christianity was concerned, I also read a lot of books by Christian authors, like C.S. Lewis and [G. K.] Chesterton, and Seraphim Rose.  I was actually raised as a Protestant, but after reading about Christian history and the Church Fathers, I feel that Orthodoxy is the “truer” version of Christianity.

Q: Do you have any concluding remarks?

A:  I’m thankful for this opportunity to come here and talk about my experience.  I reached a point back then, where I couldn’t bear with the torment of the mind and conscience.  I want to tell those who are involved with cults, not just Falun Gong, to try and evaluate things by themselves.  I want to encourage them to think clearly, and to have the courage to leave if they feel threatened.

Posted in Religion0 Comments

Revolt Against the Moderates

Revolt Against the Moderates

Every so often here at RidingTheTiger, we get messages saying that we’re going too far, and that we need to tone down our rhetoric. Such people sometimes say that we are pushing away allies and making our message less popular through advocating a reactionary or “extreme” platform.  In a word, they wish that we would become more moderate.

In some respects they are correct.  We do not pretend that our message is going to be palatable to the vast majority of the Western public.  Our mission is not to fish for allies, and our message is not meant to be one for the light-hearted. Our goal has never been to appease the misunderstandings of others, nor is it to uphold the status quo of a decadent society. Anyone who has been offended by what we say here fully has the right to feel offended, but we are under no obligation to change our worldview to appease them.

The spirit of Traditionalism embodies the noble Weltanschauung of all which is heroic, masculine, and at times, defiantly reactionary. While the pessimists hold that at worst, any political revival of Tradition may be impossible, there are those who believe that it may be possible to revive some of these traditions on a small scale through mobilising the masses to a truly culturally conservative revolution.  Such a revolution must have clear goals and clear principles around which those taking part should rally.

Today, many self-proclaimed “conservatives” are constantly agitating for compromise with “the other side”.  More often than not, such people are merely opportunists who ignore, at costly effects, the fact that the modernists and bourgeois-liberals have no desire to make any concessions of their own. This is to say that the “true believers” in the secular-liberal system are only interested in using the agents of compromise to sabotage the political process from within. To such people, the only “compromise” that they will accept is that of the opposite side’s values, and whoever disagrees is either a racist, anti-semite, a totalitarian, or mentally ill.  Needless to say, those who do not take a strong stand against such opponents are at a disadvantage.

In what we’ve come to know about politics, compromise is often viewed as a good thing.  Examining the voting records of any politician in the world will expose the fact that the modern politicians are known to waver on an issue in order to gain votes in the next election, as a result of the inverted materialistic, and short-term focus of democracy.  However, after centuries of subversion, even at the most practical level, it is not possible to gain the desired results by “working with the system”.

If we trace the devolution of society, we can contrast the modern world with that of the classical world. In the ancient world, there was a strict hierarchy of socio-political, and religious-spiritual functions.  Masculinity, bravery, honour, and intellectualism were upheld by men of good breeding.  By contrast, today’s world is ruled by financial oligarchs of questionable worth, who in turn rely on the consumers and anti-intellectual “proles” for support, promoting a dysgenic egalitarianism and the reign of quantity over quality.

However, we need not trace the irrationality of “compromise” to its most ancient roots. In fact, the rabid secularism and humanism of today would be at conflict even with the religion and general attitudes of a century ago. Whereas even liberals 100 years ago might have recognized the permission of a church to deny certain persons sacraments, in the ultra-modern era, “conservative” British Parliamentarians are demanding that churches be forced to perform homosexual marriages.

Yet another, but broader, example of where being “moderate” is useless is in the men’s rights movement.  There are surely a few activists who rightly point out the problems with feminism.  Still fewer go further and speak out  meekly voice protest against feminist policy at the highest level of government.  While these are good things to focus on, there relatively few, if any, who would actually dare to touch the Holy Grail of modernity, equality, seemingly forgetting that it was the demand for absolute equality in the first place that feminism was based on.  They also seem to forget that a majority of feminists don’t want equality, but reverse discrimination, and that fourth-wave feminists are anything but moderate.  But, sadly, a large portion of men’s rights activists seem to ignore this, and instead, they focus on minor issues that they face in the modern world, such as having to hold the door open for women (which they incorrectly define as “chivalry”).

Sometimes, non-violence is suicide.  Similarly, compromise is suicide when there are those who want nothing more than to see your downfall.

For these reasons, those who are meekly advocating a half-hearted “compromise” with liberals are doing more harm than good. They are in essence promoting the victory of the decadent liberal gradualists, who have incrementally been destroying Western civilisation, and who also aspire to destroy Eastern civilisation by proxy.  Continued compromise with Only when the liberals, secularists, and modernists disavow and fully condemn their own extremists, such as Andrea Dworkin, Jesse Jackson, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and last but not least, Barack Obama, a host of others, can any talk of mediation and compromise begin.

Until then, we must hold aloft the banner of Traditionalism and Traditionalist thought, and advance without fear.

Posted in Politics3 Comments

Reflections on a visit to the Middle Kingdom

During the past few months, I have had the opportunity to travel to several countries and speak to many audiences in an various settings. These travels have been most enlightening, because the attitudes I received have been markedly different.  In Europe, I was greeted mainly with suspicion and disdain: this was the 21st century, not the 19th, one Frenchman told me.  He said with a sort of triumphant disdain, that my ideas were dying out, and soon there would be not even “a single person who remembered what they were”.  In Asia, the reception was actually much more pleasant, for at least they had the politeness to “hear me out”.

One of the more surreal experiences occurred at a university in China. After I had delivered my scheduled lecture, the floor was opened to questions from the audience. Several Chinese students stood up, and asked for clarifications on what I had said, or requested that I expound on certain points that I had made during the lecture. Though their English was less than fluent, these exchanges were meaningful, and the students had made cogent points which in their own ways, were worthy of note. Among this crowd though, was an American exchange student. She stood up, and on the verge of crying, said that she was “deeply” offended by the many “misogynist, racist, crypto-fascist” remarks that I made throughout my speech.  Although she wasn’t able to identify precisely what had offended her, on my failure to deliver the expected apology, her tears turned to insults, as she began to berate the other listeners in the lecture hall for “giving hate a platform,” and stormed out of the room.

What was interesting about the entire incident was that the Chinese students, in this instance, were far more open-minded than the lone American student. I had always been taught that the Chinese were brainwashed, but in fact, it seemed as if the American student was the one who had been indoctrinated. But I really should have not been surprised. As anyone who has spent time in American academia can attest to, the “liberal arts” education in America is now a bland ritual in conformity. What passes for “education,” especially in the realms of politics or sociology is nothing but a test of adherence to a litany of political allegiances.  To deviate in any small way from these is to risk the permanent condemnation one’s career, as even the relatively “inoffensive” Hans-Hermann Hoppe can attest to.

Coming from such an environment, those who manage to make it to an advanced stage of study in politics or sociological studies, inevitably become oversocialized, since one would be required to act and think in a prescribed manner in order to do so.  Moreover, they must subconsciously reconcile a multitude of contradictions in order to justify a worldview which is flawed at the core and ultimately unsustainable. As a consequence, they will inevitably develop severe psychological disorders that they inherit from their pseudo-intellectual bosses.

The tragicomic irony of the American student was that she did not realize to what degree her conditioning had taken place.  Throughout her education — perhaps even beginning as three or four — she was likely taught which ideas were acceptable (“tolerant”) and which were not (“offensive” or “intolerant”).  She was likely also trained to react with revulsion when confronted with “intolerant” ideas.  When she began her university education, she very likely was introduced to magazines, books, newspaper articles, and documentaries that also confirmed these particular concepts of what was acceptable and unacceptable.  When confronted with a new idea, she simply dismissed it because, supposedly, if the idea was true, then it might have validated the notions of a certain unpopular person.  To her, the conclusion that it lead to was unacceptable.  Therefore the idea itself must have been “intolerant”.

In the media, through subtle hints in entertainment, she also learned who to love and hate.  According to The Economist, Americans spend 8 hours every day in front of the television, soaking in the “programming” that it spews out.  Through television, they learn that certain groups of people are “innocent victims,” that others are “fashionable” and worthy of emulation, and that yet others are intolerant (and therefore evil).  They watch and learn exactly what the controlled media puts out as programming.  Raunchy soap operas and films, day in and day out subtly push for the acceptance of homosexuality, promiscuity, miscegenation, drug use, crime, and prostitution as being “cool,” while simultaneously demonizing religion, “masculinity,” traditional values, and culture.

Later that afternoon, I spoke with an emeritius professor who had been alive during the Cultural Revolution.  When we discussed that day’s earlier incident, he seemed to understand completely.  He told me that propaganda under Mao had been “nothing: compared to American propaganda.  Mao’s propaganda had been too obvious.  When you saw a poster, or when you heard a speech, or when you read a newspaper article, you knew it was propaganda, so it was not worth your attention.  For instance, anyone hearing the phrase “capitalist running dogs,” knew he was listening to propaganda.  When the military came and attempted to imprison those who adhered to the “Four Olds,” ten more would pop up in its place.

Innocents abroad?

He said that American propaganda, on the other hand was much more subtle, because it makes claims which, while not necessarily true, apply to the pathos of society.  In other words, people generally want those statements to be true.  Another key component of American propaganda, he said, was the illusion of choice on the bigger issues.  In America, you are officially “free” to believe whatever you wish, but it is increasingly difficult.  Thus, said the professor, Americans are not greeted with epic overstatements such as exhortations to “bravely fight the battle against reactionaries,” which connotes a sort of violent struggle.  Americans instead are bombarded with the notion that should they think “tolerant” thoughts, that a magical utopia will ensue.  Of course, this is never explicitly stated, but, in an indirect way, people become accustomed to thinking in such a manner; the idea grows, and it takes on a life of its own.  Totalitarianism never came to America by brute force, the professor finally explained: it came in the name of anti-totalitarianism.  It was ironically tolerance that eventually came to beget intolerance of any idea deemed to be “unorthodox” by American powers that be.

As Evola once said, “The Americans’ ‘open-mindedness’, which is sometimes cited in their favor, is the other side of their interior formlessness”.

Decades later, Evola’s words remain relevant.

Posted in Politics, Society5 Comments

We Must Hold Bayonets More Firmly

We Must Hold Bayonets More Firmly

If we make it we can all sit back and laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying…
…Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying.

Note: The following is the transcript of a lecture given at National Taiwan University in Taipei, Taiwan.  The lecture was delivered in English, with an optional Mandarin Chinese translation provided via headset.


Ladies and gentlemen, students, thank you for being here with me today, on the important occasion of what I hope will be the first in a series of many lectures in a series.  I myself am grateful to be here in Taiwan to address the professors and students in this lecture hall, and hope that what I’m going to say here can be of use to all of you, and perhaps challenges your view of the world around you.

Now then, to begin, I work in a technical field by profession. So you might be asking yourself, why me, of all people, would like to talk about Tradition and Traditionalism. But I would ask you to be patient and hear my reasons. First, I’ve always been interested in the development of new technologies, not just as isolated events, but as a continuum, so to speak. For instance, one could trace the American space program not just back to Werner von Braun, but much further to the 15th century, during which European countries started building bigger and bigger armies, requiring them to draft largely from civilian populations. During the Napoleonic Wars, this necessitated the creation of canned food rations. The quest for better food preservation lead to air conditioning and refrigeration, and in 1892 Sir James Dewar invented a container that could keep liquids hot or cold. This in turn eventually allowed people to store either liquid hydrogen or oxygen, which are key ingredients in rocket fuel.

How does this tie in with Traditionalism? In one sense, it shows the dominant paradigm of the world. Namely, the this is paradigm of progress. In 1932 English physician Montague David Eder wrote: “The myth of progress states that civilization has moved, is moving, and will move in a desirable direction.” But in another sense, it also raises some difficult questions: First, is it possible to sustain such “progress” forever? Perhaps there are some people here who will say, “Of course! Just look at where were were compared to even five years ago!” But in my opinion, given limited resources, given our lifestyles, given the occurences in the world today, it could be possible that progress might not be indefinite. This leads us to the idea that if progress may not be sustainable, can it regress? And the answer here, I think is much more certain. As we may glean from history, societies too display morbidity, and can easily collapse.

But, historical examples and current data state that this could very well turn out to be true, whatever the reasons are. Therefore we must re-think our attitude towards this idea of progress. It is true that technology has improved immensely, but what about in other fields? In third world countries, it has lead to poverty and suffering. And in the first world, what is plainly felt is the tragic way that man, a primary and supra-material essence, has been forgotten. The material “needs” that are generated every day now transform people into worshippers of consumption. Day by day, heavier burdens are imposed on a frenetic populace, so that modern technological prodigies, who ought to have freed mankind from servitude to manual labor and increased people’s leisure time, cannot do even that much. In effect, the material needs are now outpacing the tremendous speed of production technology. If progress is to be rejected then, it leads to a cyclical, rather than linear view of history, which rejects universal progress, and which is at the heart of all traditional outlooks: Egyptian, Chinese, Persian, Greek, Roman, Hindu, and so on and so forth. The Italian philosopher, Julius Evola, who was one of the foremost Traditionalists, draws upon the Cyclical model, as well.

Now if you will, the general “way of being” in the modern world can be largely divided into two main, overlapping categories: intellectual systems, and social systems. It goes without saying that the intellectual systems must precede social systems, because any social system — even an imperfect one — must have some theoretical and ideological basis. For instance, it would be impossible that we could conceive of a modern America without the deeply delusional “Americanisms” that their politicians and citizens are infamous for. Therefore, we can see that the social systems which a people ultimately come to reject or embrace inherently is a consequence of the weltanschauung of any given society. If our diagnosis that societies today are moribund and lifeless, then it should seem a matter of worldview, and not merely a matter of legal review which would be the cure, and the problems which the modern world faces – that is to say the entire world, but the West is more affected by it than other places – is a fundamentally internal and spiritual one.

There can be no doubt that we live in a confusing time of many contradictions and changing societal norms. Our intellectuals, who are engaged in the monumental struggle to uphold Tradition, find themselves not only bearing upon themselves the weight of defending it from the radical left, but also from self-professed rightists who act as the de-facto allies of the left.  You know, of course, that I refer to the American neo-conservatives, who, in reality derive their ideology from Trotsky.  This is a time when our enemies resort to unprecedented methods of viscous slander regarding those who resist globalism and liberalism.  Therefore we face the task of not only defending our line of thought from these misleading statements, but also protecting the youth from falling into the trap of adopting decadent lifestyles and espousing them among their peers.

From one perspective, we must look at this from the perspective of a mass movement which rejects the Western idea of liberalism.  Western liberalism, is, in fact the last form of imperialism, but it has nothing to offer to the peoples of the developing world.  It has even destroyed the first world and made life there unbearable, so how could anyone think that it could have the potential to improve the developing nations?  Liberalism destroys cultures and subjects those living in other nations to a desolate fate.  The imposition of liberalism has undoubtedly destroyed families, and the very fabric of those societies.  So we cannot, as those living outside the West, embrace the idea of liberalism in any form.

But also, to the established politicians today the concept of “progress” means the promotion of all manners of destructive forces: the destruction of the family, the secularization of society and standardization of its members, and the corruption of economy and intellect. As it stands today, much of this ideological confusion is due to the fact that renegades have appeared in the upper strata of all areas of academics, politics, and economics. In the historical situation in which traditional moralities had become a powerful force in the guidance of the affairs of state, liberals attached a great importance to the strategy of either undermining and infiltrating it, or by declaring war outright. In accordance with this strategy, today’s liberals make increasingly malevolent attempts to ensure the success of their failed social engineering experiments, and make attempts to force the acceptance of the force acceptance their of propaganda.

If the problem’s genesis is internal, then it would be appropriate to look at the outward appearance of society for the symptoms of societal weakness and spiritual decay. On the first front, today we are witnessing the implosion of the American system, with both the Tea Party one one hand and the Occupation of Wall Street on the other. But if we look at social systems, economic systems at the root cause then there is a dead end. Utopianism ultimately becomes the failed dream which does not become a reality. Even if we change systems, we don’t have a real solution because all the modern outlooks regard man as an economic animal; their differing contours reflect the issue of which of the two will provide more successfully for the needs of this animal.

And once we begin to allow secular ideas to determine our needs, what passes for a need is really only a carnal or material desire. The result is a disaster. Starting with the French Revolution, Humanity became more and more alienated every day. People were drowned in a whirlwind of quantity, and moral greatness or spiritual aptitude had been cast aside. Societies fragmented because each person claimed for himself authority and a certain “individualism”. However, in a communist society, things are no better. In communist society, we find a similar downward curve in human moral values. It is true that the Soviet Union had a slightly better cultural life than the Americans, but for the most part these days are over. Contemporary communism, as idealized by American and European intellectuals, embraces the same bourgeois attitudes towards social behavior and individual outlook as do their capitalist counterparts. But really, these two systems are the same, are they not? Because they actually subscribe to the notion that man is not the master of the material, but rather that material is the master of man. Whereas the traditional outlook was in fact that man occupies the pinnacle of creation, and hence is the master of his surroundings, capitalism and communism and their variants, claiming as they do to be based on contemporary science, all negate the concept of man as a primary being.

We see the result is paradoxical, yet it makes sense: people yearn for individuality, but they do so by following the crowd. In their mental lives, they are also constrained by the modern method of thinking and cannot be bothered to analyze claims which their society would deem unacceptable. The Prussian Emperor Friedrich Wilhelm IV once remarked that, “Appearances become deceptive and the consequences of clearly present causes are dismissed as superstition,” and so it is with the modern outlook, which often must resort to sophistry in order to justify its conclusions. For instance, in order to safeguard democracy and freedom, the Americans now thing that it is inevitable that they must impose democracy by might on other nations. But such an action is inherently undemocratic, and what is more sets up undemocratic regimes.

Previously I said that the modern world differs radically from the Traditional world. The differences are actually too great for me to entreat here. Actually, whole books have been written about it, so it would probably be a subject for a different lecture. Ancient society is, to use Evola’s maxim, “Upward not Forward,” meaning it seeks a fundamentally different orientation. This orientation is concerned with hierarchy, order, and moral principles. It looks to build aristocrats of the soul – people who are fearless and correct in moral bearing. It also seeks to establish the proper relationship between heaven and earth, between men and women, between kings and subjects, and so on. To illustrate the differences between now and then consider this: everywhere around the world, a wealthy merchant can today be considered a great person! Not so for the Traditional world, in which the material world does not subject mankind. Confucius placed the scholars and learned men on top, while in other societies, priests and monks were regarded as men pursuing the ideal. In ancient China, Taoism sought to remove people from the drudgery of an artificial life which tainting primordial human nature. Confucius set forth his ideas (which he said were transmitted and not invented), as the intellectual basis for a rational organization of social life, and developed into a stable society. In the Indian religions, which included Buddhism, that later was transmitted unto China, there was a clear knowledge of man coupled with a deep understanding of the unity of God, nature, and man.

When we began this lecture, I said that my interest in Traditional thought began with the simple notion of historicity and studying the progress of science. I postulated here that it might be possible for the system to collapse. The decline is especially fast in what is called the “Far West,” for a number of complex reasons which are out of the scope of this lecture. Surely, if we continue on our current path, there may be little hope for the future. There is ironically an inverted principle at play, where, although man seemingly abandons “religion” in its most formal definition, embraces a new faith: the faith of the faithless. But it is possible to at least mitigate the disaster, for those who are lucky enough to be blessed with history on their side. For those in the East, it means that you will find your own path culturally and socially, and abandon the disease that Ali Shariati, a famous Iranian philosopher once called “Weststruckness”.

We should look to the past rather than the future for the solutions to social woes. No, we do not need to abandon technology, but we need to recognize technology’s role in society and not be overcome by a so-called “machinestruckness”.  Technological advances might benefit man, but they should not be relied on for the whole of entertainment and culture.  But we need more than this. We need a reverence for traditional Culture, heritage, and language on which we can rebuild society and civilization. We must stop this insane worship of “things” and the glorification of the self: it was the revolutionary, Codreanu who said that it was necessary to kill in ourselves the lower world to recieve the blessings of the higher world. And this is the beginning of the path upward, not outward that Evola talked about.

At the national level, this means that issues should be faced with honesty and bravery. Nations can and should, develop self-sufficiency based on their own ideals, even if this means that they ultimately have to abandon democracy. The Islamic revolution in Iran is some indication, albeit not a perfect one, of how this may be carried out, as is the theory of Juche advanced by General Kim Il Sung of North Korea. Democracy is no sacred cow, and human rights is merely an illusion. Democracy merely posits that anyone’s opinion has as much merit as another’s, and from this representation may be formed merely by gleaning the opinions of the masses. Yet, it is the same system which also shapes the masses opinions – and in essence, it forms a dictatorship of idiots. But, even in a true dictatorship, as Pentti Linkola once said, there cannot ever be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than the majority of the people. As for human rights, we need only look at those bodies which are promoting them.  Are they not, then, selective? One can have rights for group A and not group B. For instance, in Europe one may be penalized if they dispute the official history, and they call it “hate speech”.  On the other hand, it is perfectly normal to insult the beliefs of nearly 1/3 of the human population, and this is called “free speech”.  At its end, the invention of human rights furthers the cause of global imperialism.  We must categorically deny human rights as being a politically correct form of worship of the individual. It may seem cruel at first, but realize that long before the contemporary model of human rights arose, in which nearly every degenerate action suddenly became legal under the veneer of freedom, rights had already been established. This is not a call for inhumanity, it is a call for a peaceful and orderly way of living.

We must derive a proper lesson from all the various occurrences in the world, and resolutely reject the excesses of the modern world, as well as the slander levelled at the Traditionalist ideas, and hold bayonets more firmly in the fight against liberalism and modernism. In this way, we can face our problems with vigor, and display the intelligence and courage to turn misfortune into a blessing.

Posted in Site News, Society0 Comments

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 trouble with Irshad Manji

The trouble with Irshad Manji

Among critics of Islam, there few voices more prominent than the revisionist Irshad Manji.  Calling herself a “refuseniks,” Manji has been praised in the media, along other radical feminists such as Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for their virulent denunciations of Islam and Muhammad.  Western pundits praise Manji for her “bravery,” and portray her as a courageous woman who is fighting fighting oppression and marching bravely forth toward the so-called democratic-atheistic values of the West.  Contributing her appeal is Manji’s persona herself: she is an ethnic minority in Canada and a radical lesbian feminist who voices solidarity with great liberal values of the secular and multicultural state, making her the ideal candidate to be the overaged poster-child of politically correct demagogues. Continue Reading

Posted in Religion4 Comments


    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...