Archive | March, 2012

An alliance between Muslims and the European ‘Far Right’? – Part 1

Note from the Editors: This article originally appeared in French under the title “Osons Marine?” on the website of Albert Ali, a French-Muslim writer as a response to the President of the Muslim Collective of France.  The latter had made statements warning Muslims against voting for the “Far Right” party Front National in the upcoming French Election.  Ali, on the other hands believes that a more productive route might be to influence French nationalists to drop electoral Islamophobia, thus opening the path to collaboration with European conservatives.

It should be noted here that all the content and ideas here are solely those of Mr. Albert Ali, and they are presented here in the interest of making his ideas accessible to an English-speaking audience.

The article was translated by Thierry Vanroy, a Belgian blogger and edited by William van Nostrand and Ray Wilson, and is to be published in two parts.  A short note from the translator follows.

Note from the Translator:  In recent years, the bankruptcy of the traditional Left, Right and their respective alliances has become clear. The coming multipolar world will see entirely new post-ideological currents. There are many signs of what is to come in this respect. One of the most debated topics is “the Muslim Question” which for now still suffers from a total disconnect, especially in the West.

As a nationalist living in ‘Europe’, I find this a matter of extreme importance. We share the same continent and our fate is to be either intertwined by freedom or subdued by the unipolar ideology of the West. Interestingly, as clear evidence of changing times, some Muslims in France have been on the forefront of a very peculiar trend upon which I would like to elaborate.

However, I am not Muslim, nor am I French, so I cannot speak for Muslims, or Frenchmen.  That’s something politicians do (both Left and Right). Fortunately, I do understand French.  What better way is there than translating an article from a French Muslim?

Please mind, this is not an isolated anomaly. There is an increasing number of articles, books and organizations out there which share the same point of view.

One final note, this is written from a French perspective.  Although I have tried to explain the peculiarities, not everyone might understand some of the specifically French context.  That being said, what follows are not my words, but I hope it offers some insight into changing times.

Osons Marine? – A Reply to the president of the Muslim Collective of France.


My dearest Nabil, I would like to reply to your worries about the sympathy some Muslims have for the Front National.

I. Historical self-criticism: 

Marine Le Pen

As a former student of the political and social sciences at Sciences-Po, you should be familiar with our social and historical situation.  The movement you preside over has a history and nearly all its militant cadres come from an engaged past, especially from the Far Left (syndicalism, the Green, the New Anti-capitalist Party, etc.)

Before I tackle the case of Marine Le Pen, allow me to take a critical look at your militant system, founded on an alliance with and using the analysis of the Left.

You have been a student of theology, so you know there is in fact no entity in French politics which coincides completely with Islamic ethics. This means to us, that every choice, from the Far Left to the Far Right, is a concession. If we admit it is a viable option to support the current democratic “game” – which remains to be seen – then every choice is valid and based on more-or-less acceptable terms. However, such terms have repeatedly been determined by the author and his personal, subjective take on reality. Thus, one can make the “Islamic” case for any party. It has already been proven how Leftist Muslims and the likes find themselves torn in their position between the Left and the Far Right, where it is in fact the latter which tends to defend the values of Muslims and Islam.

Thus, we might be inclined to say that it is but a small dive into the swamp of the social leftists before we find ourselves surrounded by the stench of the Far Right.

At the beginning of your letter, you state, “Muslims who are inclined to vote for the Front National (FN) ignore the past”.  The same thing can also be said about those who sympathize with the Far Left, despite its “diversity”. We urge you to have the courage to see both the Left’s past as well as its present for what they are.  The societal breakdown caused by the Left is apparent to any Muslim, as has always been the case of those whose point of view is at odds with tradition and morality. None of us, with our traditional values, can have much sympathy with the values of the Left, especially given the context of the undeniable past and the formation of our identity. Who among us can accept gay marriage and adoption?   Who can accept libertine marriage and the collapse of the family or the anarchistic attitude towards order and discipline or the hatred for Jesus Christ and the insults aimed towards his Holy Mother or the militant atheism all the way into the schools and the denial of that which is sacred?

Have you seen the Leftists in Bordeaux who came to disturb the prayers of Traditionalist Catholics, because those Catholics opposed abortion? Are you aware of the insults of those Leftists were spouting against the Holy Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus? Why is there no Islamic representative who condemns abortion on demand — turned into a lifestyle by the Left — which today is wreaking havoc on Muslim youths? Where were the we, when we should have stood up against repulsive pseudo-art that insulted Jesus Christ?  Why have we for 20 years already, allowed such concessions? How can we sit together and act together with the dishonorable militants of a lobby which sees pedophilia as a value of society? Why have Muslims conceded to the defenders of gay marriage, while being aware of the story of Lot as related to us in the Quran [1] ?

If talking about the Front National and its supposed wartime acts of torture sickens us, then why are we not also sickened by those people who admit on television to have had sexual acts with children in the name of progress? Is the leniency towards those who have praised pedophilia and who have tried to instill their values onto French society, supposed to make people take Leftist Muslims seriously? (translator: the author is talking about the Algerian war, this is a recurring theme in the article)

How are we to believe that, by supporting those who have tried to make sexuality at a tender age “acceptable”, as said by a former minister, Leftist Muslims can be turned into credible political actors?

How can one not be saddened by the sight of how our France has decayed through half a century of usurpation, agitation and fitna?  Why have we not been angry when even 10 year old children can nowadays – thanks to the brand “Tammy” – walk around in lewd clothing?  (Editor’s note: “Tammy” was a British retailer which targeted young teens and preteens.)

How are we to forge an alliance with the princes and masters of the fasâd [2], which praises drug use and group sex, in defiance of the Quran?

When we speak of moral priorities, which is worse in terms of fasâd? The planned destruction of the family, the support for drugs, sexual promiscuity and insults towards Christ and his Holy Mother, or the rejection of mass immigration and emphasizing job security for all French? Let’s be clear:  What can we expect from the social engineering of the Left and the Far Left which – without having had time or power on its side – has thoroughly transformed France ever since May 1968, giving us this society in which excesses have become the rule?

Is this the future we want for our France? Should imams nevertheless take part in “Gay Pride” with a pink djellaba and an ultraviolet turban? If this spirit of lenience continues, this will be the end result: instead of imams warning against the “gay attitude,” imams clamoring for “gay pride,” complete with halal (sic) gay marriage!

II. Concerning Nazism, the inhumane and the praising of colonial revisionism:

You state: ”The Front National has its roots in a history that glorifies the sulfrous Vichy regime and the darkest pages of the history of France”. It deplores how the Front National has many nostalgic to the French empire, or at the very least admirers of Vichy and Nazism.

I know that at Sciences-Po, you were taught that ”Work, Family, Country” was the epitome of fascism. As a small reminder, in Islam, work is categorized as a cultural activity, an act of ‘ibâdah (worship), just like prayer, whilst Family has been a fundamental of Creation ever since Adam and Eve.  Concerning “country,” the “land of our fathers” has been passed on through Divine Volition to those who deserve it. Could such a thing symbolize fascism or horror?  This is not intended to claim that Hitler was better al-Ḥajjāj bin Yūsuf, or that National Socialism is in itself a theology, but I would nevertheless like to distance myself from categorizations instilled onto us by the system.

Why should we, descendants of post-colonial immigration, support this eternal squealing of the Left, this permanent antifascist twaddle, to mirror our minds to categorizations which are in fact not ours?

The history of European fascism is a history where we, as the “new French,” are complete strangers to. Why should we subject ourselves to such backtracking logic or the political use of intra-European history? Should there have been Nazi sympathizers and French collaborators, then we should also ask ourselves why in the beginning of the previous century the Ottoman Empire, at the end of its lifespan, felt itself compelled to support the Germans. And why, 30 years later, the Mufti of Jerusalem met Hitler and founded Muslim units in the Balkans? If we forgive one side, we should understand the other. Do we know what kind of choices we had to make should we have conquered this period in time? History is complex and dependent on such a myriad of factors, we should constantly be revising it. Getting back in touch with history is also risking anachronism. Therefore, let us start with the revision of our own familial and colonial history. Underlining the crimes of one side should lead us to investigating the unfortunate Harkis (translator: Algerians in the French army) who, 50 years since the end of the war in Algeria, are still our Muslim brothers, no matter what we say. They deserve to not just be cast away as is the case today. Cultivating hatred when we come across these people is not a part of our traditions.  Eternal revenge is not a part of the Sunnah!

The reconciliation of tomorrow is important if we are to prevent the repeated condemnation of the past.  Should we be compelled to go on with recycling the past, then let us also think of the torturings of the Harkis by the FLN ‘Mujahedin’, which were deceitfully betrayed on the order of the cowardly French government. Is this how the Prophet (swt) commands us to tread POWs?  As far as torture goes they excelled far above the inventors the Gégène[3], as if to say that the Americans were mistaken by delocalising their torture chambers outside of Arab countries! Concerning French Muslims, there is more common ground – maṣlaha [4] – to work towards the reconciliation with the Harkis and especially their descendants, who are still alive, rather than conjuring up memories of the fallen victims, so as to contemplate once more on the military past of certain cadres of the Front National.

When will we stop perpetually follow the media’s rhythm, which opportunistically and incessantly replays the sad history of the FN? When will we free ourselves from the system’s categorizations, so we will finally become autonomous? We would like to hear about the antifascist associations of Muslims and about the Vichyism of the father of the Left, supported and massively voted for by Muslims with the presidential elections of 1981 (translator: Mitterrand). It would – politically speaking – be much more sensible than focusing on French militaries, straw men on Algerian soil. So if we are to look back at history, let us do so from a critical perspective and starting from our own past, so we can then do away with the myths and lay bare the necessary nuances.

To be Continued here


[1] The Qur’an, Sûrah 7, Verses 80-82
[2] An Arabic term denoting corruption or social disorder.
[3] French military term designating an electric generator whose primary use is to power field telephones. The gegene was used to torture people by applying the electrodes to circulate an electric current between various body parts.
[4] An Arabic term roughly translated as “social welfare”.  It is invoked to prohibit or permit something on the basis of whether or not it serves the public’s benefit or welfare.

Posted in Current Events, Europe, Most Recent, Politics, Religion2 Comments

The Thought Crimes of Dharun Ravi

Recently, a young man of Indian origin was found guilty of most of the charges against him (the full verdict is available here).  The former Rutgers student was accused of using a webcam to spy on his roommate’s intimate encounters with an older man in his dorm room.  A few days later, the roommate, Tyler Clementi, later committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge, unleashing a firestorm of criticism against supposed homophobia and bullying.  Ravi now faces a possible ten-year prison sentence, and possible deportation.

A second student, Molly Wei was “let off” on the condition that she would undergo re-education counseling, do community service, and testify against Ravi.  One wonders what was involved in Wei’s testimony: did she testify honestly and openly?  Did she read from a prepared script?  Did she merely say what was required of her as part of the “deal” so that she could avoid prosecution?

In theory, Ravi was convicted for invading privacy, but the hate-crime charge adds to the prison sentence.  This isn’t really news to anyone who’s been around for a while: if two straight white men get into a fight, the police might break up the fight and fine each individual a certain amount.  However, if  one person happens to be a straight white man, and the other anything else, charges get trumped up and inevitably the jury will almost always be silently stacked to convict.  In this case, the judge and jury followed their scripts to the letter.

Apparently this isn’t enough for some leftists.  The New Yorker reported that online commentary called for lifetime imprisonment for Ravi and Wei.  Still others wanted more and opined that Ravi should have received the death penalty.  Of course, the same people frequently criticize laws in foreign country which they consider oppressive or unfair.  For instance, when Akmal Sheikh (a ‘Briton,’ the media claimed, despite the fact that Sheikh was born in Pakistan and lived in the United States for most of his life) was convicted of drug smuggling in China, there was a wide call for his release.  The fact that they believe someone worthy of the death penalty for being a “homophobe” is beyond hypocritical.

But, Clementi’s death was not a factor in the trial.  Moreover, there is little evidence that points in the direction that Ravi’s actions were meant to be “homophobic”;  Ravi stated in the trial that he was worried about theft.  At worst, what Ravi did was immature and insensitive, but it may have been an honest attempt to procure evidence in the event that his property was stolen.  Given the ridiculous “bias intimidation” charge, and the glee apparently displayed by various homosexualist lobbying groups, I think it’s safe to assume the charges would have amounted to little more than a slap on the wrist had Clementi not been gay or had he not committed suicide.  In fact, it’s very likely that if it had been the other way around and Clementi had taped Ravi with an older woman, no charges would have been pressed at all.  At most, the charge of invading privacy might have stuck, but none of the more tenuous charges of “evidence tampering” (for deleting Twitter and facebook posts), and certainly not a hate crime.

As we saw in the Sandra Fluke-Rush Limbaugh incident, it is often not what is said, or what actions are done, but who the perpetrator is, and who the victim is.  Because Clementi was gay, and homosexuals are a sacred, protected class, the media made a martyr of Clementi and a heretic out of Ravi, on the account that Ravi might not have been totally accepting of homosexual behavior.  Essentially they have punished Ravi because some of his views might have been unpopular among certain social circles, and not for the act itself.  Right now the leftists and homosexualist lobby wants to make an example of Ravi to further political ends.

John Derbyshire opined the following regarding the case:

These prosecutors are a disgrace to their profession. The Dharun Ravi trial is a travesty of justice. The actual charges are “invasion of privacy” (in Ravi’s own dorm room!), “bias intimidation,” which basically means having Bad Thoughts, and evidence/witness tampering – deleting tweets and such, really just b.s. what-the-heck charges, added on the off-chance that the court might take them seriously. For this the Middlesex County prosecutors want ten years.

As reprehensible as the media wishes to make Ravi’s actions seem, they are far from being deserving of a punishment.  The disproportionate punishment assigned Ravi is a dangerous precedent for anyone.  The point to learn here is that crime is crime.  An invasion of privacy should be treated as such, and should not have special terms attached because the victim belongs to a favored group.

Posted in Current Events, North America, Society1 Comment

The Farce of American Education

The Farce of American Education

I consider myself relatively fortunate in that I grew up in a middle-class suburb with a decent education system.  Although the district had its share of bureaucratic red tape, it was at least competent when compared to the vast majority of the public schools in America, so upon graduating, one might at least get a job at the city clerk’s office or alike.  Those who did better, might get into a local college, and a select few would be admitted into some prestigious colleges around the country.  Of course, this came at a cost: property and school taxes were through the roof, making it prohibitively expensive not to attend the school in the first place.

Even in one of the country’s better public schools, things were far from perfect.  There was a big emphasis on standardized testing, and as a result, a majority of the taxes we paid were funneled into “special education” for the kind of kids who could barely tie their shoes.  There was a program for “gifted students” when I was in elementary school, but it was more or less a study hall where we twiddled our thumbs and got the occasional snack, when there was one.  By the time I got to middle school, it consisted of listening to a lecture once a week by some stiff-nosed educational bureaucrat giving us a motivational speech and telling us to be good citizens.  By the 8th grade, anybody was allowed to join the “gifted students” group, and by my sophomore year in high school, it had been phased out completely in order to avoid offending the more politically correct parents.

There were, however certain special programs for those who were “more than equal”.  There was a program for girls to get more involved in science, and programs specifically tailored towards blacks and Hispanics.  The rest of us had to be content with whatever we could get out of the “regular” curriculum.  Outside of a few math and science classes, classwork and testing consisted mainly of memorizing long lists of names, dates or factoids.  Many times it would be dangerous to disagree with the opinions of leftist or liberal teachers, as critical thinking was frowned upon, despite the frequent exhortation that we should “question everything”.

On one occasion, I casually questioned why we spent one month in history class learning about the Holocaust, and the same month in English class reading Holocaust literature, culminating in a 3-hour long assembly about the Holocaust and Israel (at which a large Israeli flag was hung over the stage, and the Israeli anthem sung, and Israel praised for much of the presentation) that coincided Holocaust Remembrance Day.  A few hours later, as I worked away at a physics test, the phone rang.  The teacher looked up at me, then back down at his desk, then hung up the phone. He walked over to my desk and said that I was wanted in the principal’s office immediately.  And so, down the hall to the principal’s office I went.  The police were there, as was an official-looking man who was never named.  After being informed of the situation, I was summarily told that I was relieved of attendance for the remainder of the week.  After that, I learned to keep my opinions to myself, or at least to wait until I was in the proper company to express them.

There’s no doubt, that even in the very best of American schools, education has gone down the drain.  On the average, they train you get a menial job after you graduate, and at worst, they won’t even do that, all while indoctrinating you to their political ideas.  That is to say between incompetent teachers, their unions, the red tape, annoying parents, and a populace that probably wasn’t too clever to begin with, the American education system is essentially worthless.

That’s not to say that college is any better.  Since 2010, most graduating high school seniors (68.1. percent) will go on to attend college, up 45 percent from the previous decade.  Here, the cycle begins again.  One is confronted by a wall of political dogma in any of the social sciences, where one is, on the risk of failure or even expulsion, to declare political allegiance to the American left.  Fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and engineering are better in this regard, as they can be taught in an apolitical manner.  Nevertheless, at all but the most elite of universities, classes are dumbed down so that football fans and fraternity brothers with wealthy parents can learn enough to pass the course.

With the egalitarian spirit of American society, education is not what it once was.  The classical and traditional models of education, such as those espoused by the Platonists and the Scholastics held value in discovering some form of higher reason.  Education in the medieval universities emphasized things like grammar, logic, and rhetoric (and later geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music) as ways of distilling the Absolute into an accessible form.  Moreover, in the classical world, this type education was not necessary for everyone, and hence the scholars were highly respected.  At the same time, it was perfectly acceptable and respectable for a man to learn a trade in the city or to farm if he was a rural dweller.

Modern “education” is precisely the opposite: a bourgeois obscurantism which espouses a false sense of equality through standardization, and where every principle is subordinated to a manufactured and artificial ideal.  This can be illustrated in a scene that I witnessed many years ago.  I overheard some rather typical liberal arts students at a large university discussing the state of education in the United States.  One of them claimed that mathematics, chemistry, and physics were “reactionary” disciplines.  When challenged on this, he claimed that these disciplines are by and large “reactionary” because they are not accessible to everyone.  Moreover, he claimed, mathematics and science espouse “negative absolutism,” because they do not allow for one’s emotions to be adequately expressed.  To him the ideal fields of study were in the social sciences, because they served the ends of liberalism.

This is not to say that we need to eschew education altogether.  The world needs engineers, physicians, economists, and policy makers, and if Traditionalists wish to effect change, they themselves must become proficient in these fields.  Even beyond this, attainment of knowledge itself can be a worthwhile surrogate activity, and indeed should be a pursuit of all cultured people.  However, it is needed to radically define what is meant by education:

  1. We must abandon the liberal, bureaucratic and egalitarian nature of the current educational system and return to the original spirit of building knowledge from the basics.  While most people are capable of learning essential skill sets for running a small business or trade, not everyone is cut out to attend college, or even high school.  At the very least, we must re-introduce a competitive spirit which encourages the best to rise to the top.
  2. We must embrace moral as well as practical education.  Moral education is the quest to achieve a state of balance and self-sufficiency in internal affairs.  Setting priorities and knowing what is important is essential in one’s quest for moral refinement.  Family values and personal orderly conduct are an important part of such a moral education.

The American education system is no doubt in dire need of reform.  Education must be viewed as intricate and interrelated system rather than a discrete set of facts.  No one aspect of learning is isolated from the other and failure to cultivate a single aspect of one’s learning will lead to the failure of learning as a whole.  Failing to recognize this, the educational system will continue to be a pariah for years to come.

Posted in Current Events, Most Recent, North America, Society1 Comment

Cultural Hygiene

In the previous essay, we condemned the excess of cultural capitalism as being false antithesis to cultural Marxism – while the economic systems they support are inherently different, the results are essentially identical.  We also stated that, at least in the case of America, cultural capitalism is hardly a new concept, but rather, one which is directly rooted in American ideals.  As such, cultural capitalism was an inevitability, rather than the unfortunate consequence of the sum of American cultural events.  However, these American ideals, were themselves the consequence of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and a rebellion against the long-standing Catholic order of Old Europe.  In reality, the American ideal was not really different from the ideals of Europe at the time, even if they did represent an amplification of its most “senile” and “regressive aspects.  To quote the American mathematician, social critic, anarcho-primitivist Ted Kaczynski:

The American “Revolution” was not a revolution in our sense of the word…Their political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development.

The prevailing attitude among the Traditionalist school, summed up by Evola, is that, rather than being the beginning of the West’s ascendancy, it was actually the point from where Western civilization began to decline.  The concept of the Renaissance — propagated by the Freemasons and Illuminati — taught that man must turn away from the spiritual, and towards a rationalism of the flesh.  Because of this, the Renaissance rejected the supremacy of the clerical class, and adopted the modernist doctrines of materialism and egalitarianism, leading to the now-familiar “reign of quantity”.  With the ascent of materialism, there was a disruption of the old order, and essentially a shift in the seat of power happened.  In theory, the power was transferred to “everyone,” in what people termed “democracy,” but in practice, it was transferred to the banking houses of Europe which financed the American and French revolutions.

The beauty of traditional culture should be reclaimed and preserved.

While the Renaissance can be considered the last stand of the Traditional world, one might argue that such a blanket criticism of “modernity” is too general in its nature.  It is true that with the Renaissance was was the last stand of martial, aristocratic values, it was also an era that gave rise to a number of cultural and scientific geniuses.  In the West, it brought forth brilliant personages such as da Vinci, Shakespeare, and Bach — the very names that define Western culture as a whole.  In addition, as a result of re-discovering long-lost classical knowledge, the Renaissance also brought out many developments in medicine, mathematics, navigation, and the natural sciences, which have lead to a longer life expectancy, greater access to information, and better methods of food production.  Yet, these improvements mean very little in the grand scheme of things.  The “developed” nations, far from leading a very leisurely lifestyle, are dependent on machinery, less able to imagine and dream of a beyond, and coddled people afraid of struggle.

 Those living in the first world have seen the rapid destruction of traditional attitudes and forms of art brought on by modernism, only to have them replaced by material which is hardly worth notice.  Perennial values have yielded to abject decadence.  Brian Keeble notes:

[T]he industrial West (and all it has engendered globally), has now to reap the bitter harvest sown by its materialist assumptions is due in no small measure to its refusal to acknowledge the interdependence of making and knowing. The inherent contradictions of a situation in which increasing material wealth (or rather consumption) has led to a physical and mental environment in which man is increasingly displaced seems always to escape the notice of the apologists of “progress” who are liable to envisage work as something less than human dignity deserves.

The revolutionary-conservative concept of “cultural hygiene” an application of a critical view of society and it attitudes that we can use against the prevailing way of thought.  Just as hygiene is defined, broadly speaking, as the conditions or practices conducive to maintaining health and preventing disease among human beings, “cultural hygiene” seeks to defend the organism of culture.  Cultural hygiene stresses Volksgemeinschaft (folk-identity), hierarchy, identity and stability, while rejecting the decadent aspects and individual selfishness of modernity.  It entails the removal of all which is harmful to the body of culture, and the preservation of that which is positive and good.  Therefore, when one thinks of “cultural hygiene,”  it is precisely what one might think from such a terminology.

The preservation of culture and heritage should be considered a right for all the peoples of the world, but it is quickly becoming impossible in a world which knows no boundaries or moral limitations.  Cultural hygienists desire for every people and race to be able to dictate their own cultural lives, and believe that every nation and culture has the right to self-preservation, and that no culture has the right to dictate the internal affairs of others.

Although this should seem like a self-evident right, relativists and liberals will be far from satisfied by this notion.  They might say that there is no idea which is better or worse than any other, or that no one person should legislate what is acceptable.  Yet, the relativists already hypocritically attempt to legislate acceptable behaviors.  For instance, they wish to ban the criticism of the criminal behavior of certain ethnic groups, or to question the state-sanctioned version of history in many Western countries, while simultaneously claiming that anything traditional is oppression.  We reply that an unbridled moral relativism is just, if not more, corrosive to the survival of culture and societies because it is a calculated effort at undermining cultural self-determination and identity from within.  A cultural hygienist might be critical of certain expressions of decadence when they are contrary to the public interest, while cultural relativists actively attempt to introduce poison to it under the guise of freedom.

Cultural hygiene must be an active practice, and must work against degenerate art while set a correct path for the preservation and development of values.  Despite this, it must still be stressed that the first goal of “cultural hygiene” is not totalitarianism.  We do not desire, as the relativists might accuse, telescreens in every home and thought police patrolling every corner.  We believe that the mass-surveillance into the private lives of individuals by corporations, governments, and educational systems must end.  At most, it seeks to wash away the germs which, unchecked, will bring ruin to a people and their culture, and to clean society fearlessly.  The life of the people must be freed from the asphyxiating nature of modern decadence, and the method must be determined by thoughtful consideration for the preservation of our national well-being in body and soul.

RidingTheTiger member Alexander Smith assisted with writing this article.

Posted in Culture, Most Recent1 Comment

“Cultural Capitalism” is yet another road towards decadence and despair

Many academics and theorists are already familiar with the term “cultural Marxism”.  This term refers to the application of Marxist dialectal theory to cultural affairs, particularly in the realm of family composition, gender, race, and cultural identity within Western society.  Those who are impartial can also say that the cultural Marxists helped spark the counterculture social movements of the 1960s as part of a continuing plan of attempting to establish the Freudo-Marxist welfare state.  Many conservatives argue that it is cultural Marxism which has put Western culture on its deathbed, and to some degree this is true.  Cultural Marxist thought, from the kind espoused by people like Gramsci to that espoused by today’s neoconservatives, as we point out in an earlier article, has been essential in destroying the foundations of the West, by deconstructing basic ideals such as morality and family values.

It is is, however, important to note that not all Marxist-Leninist, communist or socialist countries were necessarily culturally Marxist.  If one were to compare the social and cultural atmospheres of the United States and Soviet Union, respectively, during the 1960′s, the Soviet Union might emerge as the more ‘conservative’ of the two societies.  The American author Francis Parker Yockey quite rightly noted this in his work, Imperium.  Yockey felt that the Soviet Union was a far better ally of the West than the Americans, and that in its authoritarianism it preserved something of the traditional European concept of hierarchy.  From its outward manifestations of artwork and music, one could also conclude that the USSR was far more aligned with traditional values than America was.  For instance, while Americans listed to rock-and-roll, the Soviets brought forth such composers as Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Khachaturian, and the Soviets regularly regarded America’s culture as being ‘inferior’ because of its decadence.  Because of this, one can argue that while cultural Marxism has done the West an irreversible harm, so has its counterpart, cultural capitalism.

Just as cultural Marxism takes Marxian theories and applies them to culture, so too, does cultural capitalism take the ideologies of the American and French revolutions, and try to apply them to culture.  However, reaching a more precise definition than this, is quite difficult because its results are nearly indistinguishable from those of cultural Marxism.  This should not surprise any real Traditionalist, because they are actually two sides of the same coin, being a descendant of the Renaissance-era financial oligarchies, the American revolution, and “democratic” ideals in general.  Furthermore, the two are essentially not in competition, but rather complement each other.  For instance, in order to allow for the acceptance of decadent and amoral entertainment, it is necessary to destroy  the sense of morality in the first place through cultural Marxism.

"Americans do not think, yet they are" - Julius Evola

Cultural capitalism, then, consists of all the worst aspects of American culture, including such things as: materialism, secularism, Hollywood and mindless entertainment, spectator sports, ways of dressing, decadent music, superficiality in conversations, rampant divorce, lack of artistic feeling, lack of historical perspectives, and the like, appealing to the most superficial of senses.  In the social sphere, cultural capitalism encourages feminism and liberalism especially, giving these ideas a fertile ground to take root.  Sayyid Qutb criticized some of these things in a seminal essay entitled The America I Have Seen.  Although not typically considered a Traditionalist author, he makes many good observations in that essay.  Qutb notes that civilization is not merely worth the sum of its economic output, but in the “universal truths and worldviews that they have attained,” because these truths “elevate feelings, edify consciences, and add depth to man’s perception”.  In this regard, Qutb noted, as did Evola, that Americans represented the most productive nation in the world, whilst being the most primitive.  (The British satirist Oscar Wilde had stated, deacdes earlier that “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.”)

On one level cultural capitalism might be defined as all the outward things which have come to characterize American ‘civilization’ since the 1950′s, but it is much more, because as culture is rooted in spiritual and mental predicates, capitalism as we know it is itself a symptom of all that is modern – in which the aspirations of man are merely for temporal goals, namely the acquisition of more “material,” and nothing else.  In practical life, this means that for many, running the money rat race is an imperative to survive and make a meager living, while for those who are a bit better off is a competition for more possessions and trinkets.  For the very wealthy, living in an existential impasse of confusion between need and want. This is the psychological corner stone of capitalism and consumerism driven by marketing and advertising: turning a desire for a product into an artificial need where enough is never enough — hence the need for ever more and more possessions and diversions.  Rather significantly, we might note that while cultural Marxism is adapted to disrupt the social patterns in the West, cultural capitalism is aimed at disrupting developing or non-Western countries, and thus serves for a vector of imperialism.  In this sense, it ironically fufills the Marxist pseudo-prophecy of societies needing to pass through a phase of “capitalism” before the socialist phase can be accomplished.

This is to say, that in the midst of our modern age, combined with the lack of a real hierarchical authority, capitalism is merely the pseudo-antithesis of its much more deranged cousin of Marxism, since both ultimately reduce man to a mere “cog in the machine”.  On the one hand, in the capitalist system, man must constantly be a producer of either goods, capital, or some other type of value, but on the other, the system is such that he must also be a constant consumer.  In such a society, all culture tends towards the lowest common denominator, even among the upper classes, because life becomes a merely mechanistic repetition.  Coupled with this, especially in America, is the frantic striving for equality, and the near cult-like admiration for individualism without personality, which, of course, can only be equality in degradation.

Since cultural capitalism is not in any way opposed to cultural Marxism, Traditionalism, as a general rule, does not engage in the discussion of economic theory.  Rather, Traditionalism holds that the tyranny of the economy must be abolished at its source.  In traditional societies, of course, the economy was simply one area within an all-encompassing hierarchical structure.  This attitude, as Evola writes, is not just “obscurantism”;  Evola was opposed to declaring what he called the superiority and the rights of a merely economic class living in a materialistic fashion.”  It is however, a statement against utopianism of either capitalism or communism, as well as its cultural implications.  In a few words, it opposes the “enslavement of the single individual to the productive mechanism,” which leads to the aforementioned ills.

Posted in Culture, Most Recent1 Comment

Thoughts on Rush Limbaugh’s recent comments: Who cares?

At the time that I write this, two of the top three stories in the “politics” section of the popular social networking site Reddit (which by the way, has banned submissions from this site) are about Rush Limbaugh.  By now, many Americans have heard of the statements made by Rush Limbaugh.  For those that haven’t heard, the radio host called her a radical feminist law student a “slut” on the air, prompting a firestorm of comments against Limbaugh for supposedly being insensitive.  As a result, many advertisers have refused to advertise on his show, due to the pressure put on them by special interest groups.  Apparently, there are plenty of people who think that Rush’s comments were uncalled for and over the top, and who want nothing more than for Rush Limbaugh to pay a heavy penalty for his indiscretion.

The outrage is ironic considering that for some time now, radical feminists have actually taken pride in being “sluts,” as last year’s “Slut Walks” have shown, with women parading down the streets proclaiming this very pride.  The people who organized those demonstrations admitted that their goal was to “redeem” the term, and that they were “tired of being judged by our sexuality”.  Clearly, for some radical feminists, being called a slut is a mark of pride.  Moreover, other media personalities have insulted women with abandon, and have received little condemnation by anyone else.  In 2009, David Letterman said that Sarah Palin looked like a ”slutty flight attendant”.  In the same year, Perez Hilton called that year’s Miss California a “dumb bitch” because she didn’t agree with his views on gay marriage.

In other words, we might well ask,  ”Who cares?”

Obviously, the liberals are hypocritical when it comes to such issues, but that is really a non-issue.  As much as one could argue that what Rush Limbaugh said was slanderous, immature, and inappropriate, there are bigger issues with the media.  What was merely an off-the-cuff remark, which has been readily rejected by the majority of Americans, pales in comparison to the lies produced MSNBC, FOX, CNN, and the like on a daily basis about issues like the economy, the election, and foreign policy, which are readily and willingly believed by a majority of Americans.

When it comes to the economy, the syncophantic media has consistently and persistently lied about Obama’s so-called economic recovery.  For instance, in the first quarter of 2007, unemployment was around 4.6%.  Under the Obama regime, 6.2 million Americans lost their jobs and the unemployment rate shot up to an official estimate of 8.5%, yet they continued to trumpet Obama’s so-called “economic recovery” as a success.  The media also refuses to condemn the Federal Reserve as having a role in the crisis, and more often than not, they wish to fool the average person into thinking that there is nothing wrong with the economy at all.

In the area of foreign policy, the propaganda machine is far more pervasive.  On March 5, Netanyahu came to visit Obama in the White House, together they voiced their opposition to Iranian so-called “nuclear program”. Obama has pledged his support to maintaining “Israel’s security”. What do the Israeli’s and the Americans have to fear? The holocaust denier who has promised to “wipe Israel off the map” getting his hands on nuclear weapons.

Never mind that the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has stated time and again that Iran seeks regional stability, and hence does not want nuclear weapons or that Khamenei has also stated that he believes that it would be immoral to pursue weapons of mass destruction.  Never mind that Ahmadinejad has neither threatened to wipe Iran off the map, nor denied the Holocaust: the media, the ADL, and ‘good’ mainstream politicians, say so, so that must be good enough.

The truth is that these intertwined accusations are completely false.  There is a thriving Jewish community in Iran, that is guaranteed a seat in the Iranian parliament.  International Jewish organizations like Neturei Karta and Satmar have visited Iran and met with Ahmadinejad.  One such visit from Ultra-Orthodox, Anti-Zionist Jews was the infamous “International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust,” held in 2006, which was not a “holocaust denial” conference, as the media claimed.  It was merely an attempt to give voice to critics of the European “court historians,” and to protest the hypocrisy of western “freedom of speech” that promotes blasphemy and condemnation of all things “un-modern,” yet sends people to jail for “denying” the holocaust.

Ahmadinejad If one ever actually watches any speech or interview of Dr. Ahmandinejad, one will not find any evidence of holocaust denial or anti-Semitism.  In an interview, he said:

In the second World War, over 60 million people lost their lives…Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed have become so prominent and important? Do you think that the 60 million who lost their lives were all at the result of warfare alone? There were two million that were part of the military at the time, perhaps altogether, 50 million civilians with no roles in the war…They were all killed. The second and more important question that I raised was, if this event happened, and if it is a historical event, then we should allow everyone to research it and study it…Why is it that researchers are jailed? Why is researching this issue prohibitited?

As it can be seen, Ahmadinejad is merely criticizing the idea that the holocaust is “unique.”  During the 2nd world war, 60 million people died on all sides of the conflict, yet for some reason, people are routinely told about the 6 million Jews who perished.  There is comparatively little attention given to the genocide of 8 million Ukrainians shortly before World War II, the deaths of 30 million people in East Asia, the expulsion of millions of Germans in its aftermath, or the civilians killed in the allied bombings of Munich, Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, all of which can be denied or trivialized. He is also critical of the way that the holocaust is used as a shield for current crimes of the IDF against the Palestinian people.

While Rush Limbaugh’s brash rhetoric may have hurt the feelings of this 30 year old law student, I am sure that she will get over it. We should be paying much more attention and be much more in an uproar over Tucker Carlson’s call for Iran to be annihilated, or the media’s lies about economic recovery. as the consequences of such actions will likely have much more dire consequences than the reputation of an American college student.

The fact is, that if people are more “concerned” with Rush Limbaugh’s rant being “offensive” to an uppity feminist college student, Americans have no credibility.  The threat of impending war (championed by both American conservatives and liberals alike), and the looming specter of an imminent economic collapse should be far more worrisome.

Posted in Current Events, North America1 Comment

Juche as a Third Positionist Ideology

Juche as a Third Positionist Ideology

Paul Shepard contributed to the writing of this article

Juche is the state ideology of DPRK – the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It is usually translated as “Self-Reliance,” or “the Spirit of Self Sufficiency,” but can be literally translated as “main body”.  The Juche Idea holds that the most important task of socialist construction is “molding the People.” Kim Il Sung – its principal author – describes Juche’s meaning as: “Man is the master of everything and decides everything.”

The Juche Idea is rooted in the perennial notion that mankind alone possesses consciousness and creativity – something expressed by the Koreans in the single concept of “Chajusong.” The other concepts of the Juche idea can be summed up by the following points:

  1. Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction.
  2. Methods of revolution and construction must be suitable to the situation of the country.
  3. The most important work of revolution and construction is molding people ideologically as communists and mobilizing them to constructive action.

While the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is often called “the last communist state,” by many Western political commentators, there is in reality, much ignorance regarding the position of Juche on political matters. While indeed, the Great Leader General Kim Il Sung began his political training as a Marxist, he understood Marxism as a method of mobilizing the general masses against imperialism. Later, in particular, after the Sino-Soviet split, the DPRK aligned itself with China. This should not be surprising, as the Chinese and Koreans both had similar social backgrounds at the time.

There are, however, a few differences. General Kim Il Sung opposed the Cultural Revolution in China as going too far. In fact, one interpretation of Juche is “putting Korean things first,” [1] meaning that Korean culture should be upheld and cultural imperialism resisted, as only the people of a nation can determine what the revolutionary idea will be for that nation. The Dear Leader Kim Jong Il rejected Marx’s idea that “workingmen of the world have no country,” and scribbled in the margin: “I am a Communist, I am Korean. I see no contradiction.”

Despite their stressing of the specificity of Juche to DPRK’s distinct historical-geographic context, the North Korean state nevertheless views their great social experiment as ally to other “bullied” developing and third-world nations struggling to build socialism “in their own style.” In one of his essays, entitled On Preserving the Juche Character and National Character of the Revolution and Construction, the Great Leader Kim Il Sung said:

Maintaining the Juche character of the revolution and construction means that the popular masses shape the destiny of their country and nation and their own destiny independently and creatively by being the masters of their destiny. Sustaining the national character means preserving and developing the good qualities of the nation and embodying them in all spheres of social life.

To state this differently, Kim Il Sung understood that the people of a nation are its asset.  Keeping the European character of Europe, for instance, is nout out of line with the ideals of Juche.  To this end, Thus Juche Korea supported national and populist revolutions, and build relations with the leaders of developing countries, such as Nasser of Egypt, Colonel Muammar Qadaffi of Libya, and Imam Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran, seeing all these forces as the genuine expression of the people’s revolutionary will. Despite this, they insist on the mutual exclusivity of their political institutions and absolute sovereignty of individual nations. The DPRK has been described as a “fortress state.”

The Monument to the Foundation of the Worker's Party of Korea, depict a hammer, sickle and writing-brush held by the worker, peasant and intellectual symbolic of the Juche Idea.

In practice, Juche is accompanied by an intense nationalism which stresses economic autarky and a martial spirit known as Songun. Perhaps, more striking to westerners is the incorporation of the very traditional concept of filial piety (Korean: hyo). According to traditional Confucian thought, the relationship between leader and subject (君臣) parallels that of a parent and child. In Juche, this is translated into the theory of socio-political life and revolutionary leadership wherein the Korean people are bound together in a mutual relationship whether in life or in death, in sorrow or happiness and so on [2].  The passionate devotion of the Korean people to the Great Leader General Kim Il Sung and the Dear Leader Comrade Kim Jung Il, are the outward manifestations of these ideas, often considered by the West to be a “cult of personality”. Juche holds a neo-Hobbesian view of society, positing that the Leader (at present Kim Jong Eun) is analogous to the human brain and the Party is analogous to the nervous system – conveying the instructions of the brain. The People, finally, serve as flesh and bone, carrying out those instructions.

In one documentary film, a reporter asks his guide, “what is your opinion of the Dear Leader [Kim Jong Il]; do you think he’s doing a good job?” The guide responds, “There is something strange here. How can I know? How can I, a common person, know the great and deep idea?”

In the DPRK, media, including film, music, and the arts are considered to be a part of political life.  For the Korean people, the media is an instrument for inculcating Juche ideology and the continuation of the revolutionary struggle of the nation.  The culture of Juche Korea is deeply rooted in the need to take the best from the past, while discarding capitalist elements. Popular, vernacular styles and themes in literature, art, music, and dance are esteemed as expressing the truly unique spirit of the Korean nation. Ethnographers devote much energy to restoring and reintroducing cultural forms that have the proper proletarian or folk spirit.

In Pyongyang, the broadest selection of cultural expression. is offered, and revolutionary messages are a part of everyday life.  ”Art propaganda squads” travel to production sites in the provinces to perform poetry readings, one-act plays, and songs in order to “congratulate workers on their successes” and “inspire them to greater successes through their artistic agitation.”  Indeed, DPRK’s media engages in a kind of mythopoeia unseen since the time of Pharaohs.  For example, according to official news sources, Kim Il Sung was being carried off to Heaven after death by a flock of cranes when – in response to the outpouring of grief from the mourning Koreans – it was agreed that he would not be taken, and that he would abide forever in eternal sleep.  This is why Kim Il Sung bears the title of Eternal President and is still considered DPRK’s head of state.  Also, again according to official news sources, a new star appeared in the sky when Kim Jong Il was born.

Juche might even be termed a kind of National Socialism, as the Koreans are regarded as forming a community of the blood and possessing a contiguous history and culture – DPRK’s heritage is celebrated and their state is likened to that of semi-mythic ancient Korea. It is thought that the Nation is eternal and that Koreans will always speak Korean.  In fact, B.R. Myers argues in The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves that aspects of Juche ideology – specifically deification of the “Leader” figure are closer to what Westerners think of as being on the “right”.  Myers writes:

North Korea’s dominant ideology […] can be summarized in a single sentence: The Korean people are too pure blooded, and therefore too virtuous, to survive in this evil world without a great parental leader. […] I need hardly point out that if such a race-based worldview is to be situated on our conventional left-right spectrum, it makes more sense to posit it on the extreme right than on the far left [3].

The importance of human personality and responsibility are clear here. Kim Il Sung and his followers firmly believed in what might be called a “heroic” understanding of history.  Rather than embrace the dialectical materialism of Marxism, the philosophy of Juche proudly puts man at the center of all the world, echoing the Nietzschean concept of die Wille zur Macht.  Moreover, the role of the leaders in Juche, in many ways, resembles that which Evola idealized.  All these make Juche a far cry from Marx’s blind mechanistic forces and resembles far more the Third Positionist notions of 20th century Europe, notably the Nazis’ Fuhrerprinzip.


[1] Cumings, Bruce. Korea’s Place in the Sun: a Modern History. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005.
[3] Myers, B. R. The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House, 2010.


Paul Shepard is a freelance writer whose articles have appeared in The Cazenovia Republican, The Bard Journal of Social Sciences, The Moderator, and

Posted in History, Most Recent, Politics0 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...