Tag Archives: politics

Rising from the Ruins

Ur ruinerna

Finally arriving in the mailbox, “Rising from the Ruins” (Ur ruinerna) is a beacon of hope for Northern and Western Europe and the West in large, as these bleak days that are being heralded with jumbled and insignificant words are falling more and more on deaf and indifferent ears: “Progress”, “Democracy”, “Diversity”, “Open Society”; but which in reality are euphemisms for Kali Yuga or the Twilight of the Gods, Ragnarök.

Joakim Andersen is the head contributor for the Swedish New Right, Alt-Right – or whatever label you prefer – think-tank Motpol, (Counter pole) and a chief figure in the growing Swedish underground political and cultural sphere which is represented, aside from Motpol, by the publishing house Arktos, Logik Förlag and many more Swedish alternative media outlets.
He and the Motpol gang have committed themselves to the re-invigoration of the Swedish culture and political sphere. They describe one of their chief goals as follows: “Lifting forth a spectrum of culture left out from an increasingly narrower and infantile public discourse.”

Being a former Marxist with a keen eye for the history of ideas, Andersen has delved and shed light on the principles of Traditionalism and the New Right school of thought brought forth by the likes of Alain de Benoist and the French think-tank GRECE, (Groupement de recherche et d’études pour la civilisation européenne), chiefly responsible for introducing these ideas to Swedes seeking to find their way out of the mirage of Liberalism. He continues this admirable trade in his book debut.

Just like the eponymous title suggest, “Rising from the Ruins” proclaims “The End is Nigh”, that the liberal order of the West is doomed to perish from the internal contradictions and crises that it has afflicted upon itself via mass immigration, multicultural politics at the expense of native cultures, cultural and spiritual neglect, and unprecedented demographic change, (Progress, according to Liberals).
But as they say about “blessings in disguise”, this means that from the metaphysical ruins, not any physical rubble (with the exception of Detroit and the growing European suburbs), a new type of world is taking form, at least in the form of ideas and street activism.
“Rising from the Ruins” examines the growth of the Alt-Right phenomena and its similarities and distinctions with the European New Right. It looks at the Donald Trump phenomena, (albeit before his shift into the same-old interventionist and Zionist pandering). The book highlights a number of thinkers from which the New Right/Alt Right have reaped ideas from: Julius Evola with his Riding the Tiger, Martin Heidegger with Daesein, Ezra Pound with Usura, René Guenon with the Crisis of the Modern World, Samuel T. Francis with his Foxes and Wolves analogy of power struggle, Aleksandr Dugin with Eurasianism, Guillaume Faye with Archeo-Futurism, Antonio Gramsci with Cultural Hegemony; the seed to Cultural Marxism, Hans Blüher with the Männerbund; a fraternity of Men keeping (or re-invigorating) the flame of Civilization, (i.e. the Monks after the fall of Rome laying down the groundwork for Christian Europe), as well as highlighting the intellectual, cultural and social movements: Casa Pound; (the Männerbund), the Eurasian movement, Génération identitarie, etcetera.

Joakim Andersen proves himself an accomplished summarizer. His wide encyclopedic knowledge of the intellectual history of the Right and the various movements mentioned above is impressive to say the least. Drawing inspiration from Spengler, Evola and many others, the book does not merely linger on the political, but on the spiritual and cultural sphere, from a possible re-Christianization to a revival of European heathenism  a sargued by Alain de Benoist and others of the French New Right. The optimism one feels while reading the book makes it stand out from all the echoes of defeatism and short-term strategy that characterizes the black-pillers. Andersen allows the thinkers and ideas to speak for themselves without muffles, very seldom sharing personal thoughts or insights on the issues.

It must be noted, Andersen stresses, that the nations of Europe differs and thus one ideology or movement in a particular country may not succeed in another. The Identitarian movement in France and Germany being a good example. Both countries are unified states, composed of several historical “nations” or tribes with strong sense of “local patriotism”. In the case of France, we have the Celts of Brittany, the German heritage of Alsace, and in Germany, the state of Bavaria. In Sweden, where the nation state has gone further and local identities been swallowed up in the homogenization process – the exceptions being the provincial identities of Dalarna, Skåne and Gotland – the Identitarian movement have not picked up here as great as in France. Likewise, Casa Pound, being a product of Italian sensibility and cultural formation might prove difficult in exporting to other countries that lacks that some vigor and thumos that Italians have stored. Possibly the incomplete and non-dogmatic Fourth Political Theory could blend well with the different historical, cultural and religious backgrounds of respective European nations and peoples.

The English edition is under way, and I can highly recommend it for its spiritually and life affirming importance. Time is due to learn how to ride the tiger through all the rubbles and funeral pyres.

Freedom in Islam vs. Liberal Freedom

http://katehon.com/article/freedom-islam-vs-liberal-freedom

Democracy is a Myth

Democracy is a myth

“Who will rule, God or Man? This is the great constitutional question of human existence”
Excerpt from Demokratin är en myt (Democracy is a Myth); or The Myth of Democracy

Swedish historian, thinker and leading representative for the Perennial school of thought, Tage Lindbom (1909-2001) wrote his critique on Western democracy in 1990. Formerly a dedicated member of the Social Democratic Party of Sweden, he grew disillusioned with the economic progress, yet spiritually and culturally empty void of Swedish society. He denounced Social Democracy in favor of a Traditionalist worldview, embraced Sufism and became a disciple of the Swiss Sufi metaphysician Frithjof Schuon. He spent the remainder of his life with writing critiques of Modernity. In his work “Democracy is a Myth“, he puts democracy under the microscope and lay forth that once Democracy raised to the status of Myth, Mythos, became the Order of Western Civilization or as he terms it: the Kingdom of Man; “Människoriket”.

The first thing is to give some context. What is Traditionalism and Modernism? First, Traditionalism is being aware of a higher, divine reality that determine the worldly, sensual reality. The other is the idea that rejects the Traditional in favor of evermore change, progress and the abolishment of hierarchies and authorities in order to create new fields of human exploitation. Simply put, Traditionalism is the idea of a cosmic equilibrium in which man lives in connection with both a vertical and horisontal existence, whereas Modernity is the idea of unrestrained human freedom and a purely horisontal worldview.

In spite of this long lasting enmity, Lindbom finds a common thread that unites both the Traditionalist and Modern worldview. While ideological, cultural and spiritual enemies, they share a common heritage of a common memory of a primordial state of Order. Both Traditionalism and Modernity acknowledges a primordial order, yet differ on the basis of whether Man or God will rule supreme. It is from this search for the primordial source that the French thinker Jean Jacques Rousseau constructs his ideas of the General will, the Social Contract and Nature being the primordial source, i.e. the Garden of Eden or Paradise Lost.

With the Fall of man, we have the rise of Liberty and Equality, the two cornerstones in human existence and the ideological frameworks for the French and Russian Revolution or Devolution. By using the Myth instead of the Ideology, Democracy is raised above time and space, beyond human wills and strivings, becoming absolute, total and ahistorically primordial. Man is made the Sovereign, indivisible and the center of everything.
The prevailing order can be summarized as the holy trinity of Modernism.
In the name of Man, Modernity and the mythical Democracy.

 

 

 

ISIS is losing, and Assad is Responsible.

bsa.jpg
 /
As the scourge of ISIS is slowly purged from Syria and Iraq, some in the western media who have spent the last 6 years trying to turn public opinion against the Syrian regime as well as his allies Russia and Iran are facing a difficult question; why, for so much of those years, have they called for the Syrian government to be removed in place of the terrorists his army is now so bravely defeating.
 .
Bashar al-Assad is a true modern day hero. He has gone up against the Zionist controlled coalition of the forces of Israel, the US, Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, ISIS and the terrorists of the so called Free Syrian Army all of whom share a common objective in wanting to overthrow this moderate regime, which has protected Christians, Shia Muslims and other minority faiths from the barbarism of fundamentalist Islam.
.
He has faced the threat of his beloved country being bombed, invaded and torn apart from the inside by the arming and funding of criminals by western regimes, yet he has remained steadfast, stuck to his principles and refused to bow to the evil forces which have infested his nation like a virus. Now the Syrian people are reaping the rewards of this struggle. No one deserves more credit should ISIS eventually be defeated, yet the media will still decry him as a dictator and a war criminal, as well as continue their insidious campaign against his only major allies, Iran and Russia. But for those who know the truth, there is no greater hero in this struggle than Bashar al-Assad.

A lesson from the Irish in America

The Whitehouse yesterday put out the following release, announcing he return of March as Irish – American heritage month. The statement read:

IRISH-AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH, 2017

– – – – – – –

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Irish Americans have made an indelible mark on the United States.  From Dublin, California, to Limerick, Maine, from Emerald Isle, North Carolina, to Shamrock, Texas, we are reminded of the more than 35 million Americans of Irish descent who contribute every day to all facets of life in the United States.  Over generations, millions of Irish have crossed the ocean in search of the American Dream, and their contributions continue to enrich our country today.

From our four Irish-born Founding Fathers to Thomas Francis Meagher, the Irish revolutionary who became an American hero after leading the Irish Brigade during the Civil War, Irish immigrants have shaped our history in enduring ways.  Throughout the centuries, hard-working Irish Americans have contributed to America’s innovation and prosperity — tilling the farms of Appalachia, working the looms of New England textile mills, and building transcontinental railroads — often overcoming poverty and discrimination and inspiring Americans from all walks of life with their indomitable and entrepreneurial spirit in the process.  From these early beginnings rose generations of Irish Americans who continue to lead our cities, drive our economy, and protect and defend the land they embrace as their own.

American culture carries an unmistakably Irish-American imprint.  Our literature, cinema, music, dance, sports, and visual arts are filled with the names and influence of great Irish Americans.

Irish Americans should be proud of the deep cultural, historical, and familial ties that have contributed to the strength of our vibrant transatlantic relationship with Ireland.  As we honor the past during Irish-American Heritage Month, we also celebrate a bright future of friendship and cooperation for generations to come.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 2017 as Irish-American Heritage Month.  I call upon all Americans to celebrate the achievements and contributions of Irish Americans to our Nation with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-first.

DONALD J. TRUMP

 

 

Now let me say, as a proud Irish man I am glad to see the American administration recognise the strong bonds between our people. The story of the Irish Americans can teach us a lot. I expect the extreme left will be up in arms over Trump celebrating a fellow white race, but there was a time when no one faced greater “oppression” than the Irish.

The Irish fled to the U.S. from a desolate Ireland, destroyed by a laissez faire British economic policy designed to systematically lower the population of Ireland. Motivated by economic theories popularised by David Ricardo and others, the British administration believed the Irish Catholics over bred and their population needed lowering if they were to be economically viable. Thus it was that they could justify exporting huge amounts of livestock out of Ireland during the potato famine. During the famine there were numerous cases of people resorting to eating rats in a desperate attempt to survive. The Irish population was lowered in half.

The Irish, fleeing this dire situation, came to the USA with nothing but hope and an unmatched work ethic. They did not have dreams of getting rich or living an American dream, they simply wanted to earn enough to survive. For many decades the Irish were treated as second class citizens. Restaurants regularly displayed signs saying “No dogs, No Irish” and the Irish were often refused work due to their race. Yet, they persevered, and over time became an integral part of the growth of the US as the most powerful nation in the world. The Irish helped build the American dream, and few understood it better than they.

Today they are an unmistakable part of the American culture. Through their hard work they (we) have come to dominate certain sectors such as certain fire and police departments. Did they do this through quotas? Did they do this through welfare? Through political correctness forcing the indigenous population to talk to them in a way they found agreeable? No. They did it through hard work and virtuous living. They kept their faith and customs in such a way that they never descended into becoming a criminal underclass as other racial groups tended to do. This is not to say that they didn’t integrate. Indeed, another reason for their unique success was their willingness to embrace American culture and ultimately help shape it. Despite the hatred and discrimination they faced, they still very much believed in the American dream, and resolutely refused to become a victimised minority.

They succeeded, not by quotas, not by reparations, not by welfare or pity from the majority, but by the strength, determination and goodness present in their character. This lesson is one more relevant now than ever.

Is Trump Selling Out?

During the campaign I never exactly got on the Trump train. However, I was hopeful on some aspects of his campaign. Hopeful he could curb immigration, curb some elements of the far left social agenda being pushed on the American people, renew relations with Russia and stop the disastrous policies being pursued in Syria.

Since he has taken office however, the early signs have been very disconcerting. Last week Trump claimed that Crimea is rightfully Ukranian and accused Putin and Russia of stealing it from the Ukraine. This despite the fact that the vast  majority of Crimeans consider themselves Russian and Putin himself warned NATO that if they launched a coup in the Ukraine he would take action to annex Crimea. The Trump administration has also “Put Iran on notice”.

In other words, Trump has instantly began shilling to the Zionists who hold a dangerous amount of power in US politics. Russia is an enemy of the Zionists due to their support of the Syrian administration, which Israel launched a proxy invasion of in an attempt to remove Assad, weaken Syria and its ally Iran, and ultimately balkanise the middle east and allow a strong Israel to dominate without challenge. This is why Russia and Iran are the great enemies of the Zionists. Iran because it exists outside the globalist strangle hold and refuses to submit to Israeli hegemony, and Russia both because it is renewing traditional values and resisting globalism, and because it is willing to use force to resist Zionist and neocon plans for the middle east.

Let’s not forget, despite his rhetoric against the elite, Trump has appointed no less than four Goldman Sachs alumni, including jews Gary Cohn and Steven Mnuchin. He also appointed his Jewish son in law Jared Kushner as a senior adviser. What exactly qualified Kushner for this position? Who can say, but it seems the Zionist influence in Trump’s administration is already making it’s presence felt, and Trump’s nationalist rhetoric is morphing into more of the same neocon, pro Zionist propaganda.

De Maistre on Human Nature

It’s Too Late for The West

 Cy2h1kqVEAApcmH.jpg
.
 “Romantic Ireland’s dead and gone,
It’s with O’Leary in the grave.”
 .
Thus goes W.B. Yeats lament regarding the degradation in character and morals of the Irish middle class in the early 20th century. It’s ironic that this is found in his poem September 1913 when you consider that just three years after the date the Irish would participate in a brave rebellion against the British in Dublin, a rebellion they knew would end in failure and their blood sacrifice. In other words, Yeats was wrong, there was an aspect of romantic Ireland which survived, inside the hearts of every Irish man and woman as a spark of nationalist sentiment, a spark which was fanned into a veritable inferno by the events of September 1916. What is the point of this? The point is that people are always lamenting the degradation of what they hold dear, society is always collapsing, even when it isn’t. Man holds a certain pessimism for the progress of society. But I will venture to say it again, we, the west, are in decline. I am so sure of the downward direction our society is advancing in that I am now convinced there is no hope of redemption. The West is dead.
.
Now, some may say my pessimism is unfounded and badly timed, giving the growth of the alt right, nationalist politics, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. All these are signs that most people are throwing off the cosy liberal consensus and returning to a more reactionary approach to governance. This provides some hope, but ultimately it is motivated by the same motives as those who vote for liberal policies. In each case people vote based on the prospects of their finances under whatever leadership. Who will make them wealthiest, give them the most benefit for 4 years. No one votes on ideals, and the constant drive for economic prosperity is part of the reason the West is doomed. For it, we have sacrificed much, but the greatest sacrifice of all was morality. The West cannot survive because it is decadent. In our material comfort, we have lost reverence and respect for the ideals which were the formation of the West.
.
The educated are resented, knowledge is scoffed at, philosophy and theology are seen as a joke, simply leaching off the more noble field of science, which guarantees continuing prosperity and comfort for us. Religion is seen as one hobby among many, no greater or worse than yoga, though perhaps worse for the hatred it inspires, though this can’t be said regarding Islam, for most muslims are non whites and thus immune to any criticism. Political correctness has stifled free debate, and shown us that liberalism as it ultimately manifests itself is little more “free” than medieval political arrangements. With the sacrifice of morality we can not recover. Even if there is a great awakening in the West, a massive reaction against the liberal consensus, the reactionaries will not know with what principles to replace those they rebel against. Rome did not collapse because it over extended itself or because it embraced Christianity, it collapsed for the same reason every great empire has – having long enjoyed prosperity created by men of belief, it fell into unbelief and decadence. The weak, nihilistic men this decadence spawned drove their inheritance into destruction. It has happened to every great civilization, it will happen to the West. Many on the left may embrace this, but what could possibly follow it is more worrying. Lament the death of the West, the Moslem barbarians wait at the crumbling walls of our civilisation.

Media’s ‘Alternative Facts’ Concerning Russia

During US President Donald Trump’s pre Superbowl interview with Fox News veteran Bill O’Reilly, Trump was challenged over his contact with Russian president Vladimir Putin. O’Reilly seemed horrified that Trump, who he supported throughout his campaign, would even consider amicable relations with the leader of the largest country in the world. “He’s a killer!” O’Reilly boldly claimed at an undaunted Trump. No facts were provided to support this very serious claim, but then, when Russia is discussed in the western media it generally is a fact free zone.

Much of the media still seems to be in arrested development, believing the Cold War is ongoing and Russia is still a communist state. Of course, the current Russia is about as far away from the USSR in ideology as possible. It’s also common knowledge that Russia wants to control all of Eastern Europe, and would do so were it not for the United States and it’s allies holding Putin, the modern day Hitler back. Again, comparing Putin to Hitler is as ridiculous as comparing him to Stalin.

Putin is a nationalist, plane and simple. He took over from Boris Yeltsin, who was widely disdained by the Russian people for prostituting Russia out to the western globalisation process and almost destroying the Russian economy. He took over the largest nation in the world, which faces violent dissidents and separatists in volatile locations such as Chechnya. He took over a people who for years had atheism enforced on them as state policy, and some of their most beautiful churches destroyed by the evil communist regime, a people that have since returned to religion and tradition en masse, presumably with a new found appreciation for the old after seeing what the alternative looked like under years of atheistic communism. So when Putin behaves as a strong leader, tries to keep Russia protected from the worst effects of globalism, and uses the law to try and protect and enforce a traditional morality, it doesn’t make him Hitler or Stalin, who forced a rationalist ideology on their subjects in place of existing structures, it makes him a true representative for the Russian people.

And this is born out by the statistics. Putin is often polled at a 90 percent plus approval rating. Some in the West will decry any statistics on his support, or any election in Russia as a fraud, but without doubt the majority of Russian people are happy with Putin’s leadership  – certainly happier than they would be with the kind of leader the West would like to force on them. As to the charge of being a killer, I wonder what is O’Reilly referring to. Is he talking about the Russian interference in the Ukraine, brought on by a Western backed coup over a democratically elected, pro Russia regime? Or is he referring to the Russian support for the Syrian army, an army who has single handedly been preventing Syria from falling into the hands of ISIS and other radical extremists for 6 years now? To state the obvious, if one were to label any world leader a killer in the last few years it would have been Nobel peace prize winner Barrack Obama. Obama dropped over 26 thousand bombs in his final year in office. Like Russia, he also oversaw a bombing campaign in Syria, except unlike Putin, he intervened in Syria without the permission of the regime there, launching a bombing campaign which Bashar Al-Assad said was unhelpful in fighting extremists. Hardly surprising, considering the uprising in Syria was almost entirely a creation of the US, who armed and funded terrorists there as far back as 2011.

These are facts. When Russia is slated regularly in the media, it is generally slander appealing to people’s prejudices and ignorance on the topic. The media decries the era of ‘post truth’ and ‘alternative facts’, yet when it comes to discussing Russia they repeatedly show how little they regard the truth.

A Call To Tradition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As of today this blog has been renamed The Traditionalist, and it’s new url is radicaltraditionalism.com. I feel it would be remiss of me to let this opportunity pass without explaining my decision to make it explicitly a space for the promotion of traditionalism.

The story of my journey to an embrace of traditionalism probably may not be captivating, but in many ways it seems to parallel the journey humanity has been on the past few centuries, though the conclusion is far from certain to be the same. What i mean is, I was raised with a romantic and firm belief in a religious mythology, began to embrace it intellectually, then encountered certain heresies against those beliefs and, after a rather poor intellectual examination of those original beliefs dropped them, first in favour of agnosticism or a kind of deism, and then in favour of full fledged materialism and atheism. I then faced the consequences of such a belief and, still desiring something greater than myself to believe in, I turned my passion to radical politics. Having seen the failings in such views, I then again dropped into a kind of nihilism, before embracing a return to traditionalism. Were my story to be akin to that of humanities, it would seem we are at the penultimate stage of development, though I am less than hopeful that is how it will pan out.

Raised a Catholic, I was quite devout as a child and for a time I even wanted to be a priest when I grew older. Around a certain age, say 14, an older family member introduced me to a YouTube documentary which viciously attacked religion and the Catholic Church in particular, and then casually “refuted” Christianity with it’s explanation of how the story of Jesus had been fabricated, taking common aspects from other religious myths such as Horus, Mithra and Krishna to construct a satisfying fairytale to keep stupid poor people under the thumb of the all powerful church. Of course, at the time I neither had the critical faculties nor the knowledge to challenge these shocking claims, and thus left my faith.

Despite losing my faith in any and all religion, I always remained an agnostic rather than an atheist, and still had a certain intuition that bare faced atheism could not be true, but I did not trouble myself with thinking over the matter. is there a God? Who knows? Better not to trouble oneself with such unanswerable questions and get on with life. My first great intellectual interest was politics, and I dived into it with all my heart and soul. The same family member who showed me the falsehood of all religion pointed my intellectual endeavors in the direction of radicalism, expressing his horror at the evils of capitalism and the crimes of the US. Once again, he seemed right minded on this, and I became quite left wing for a time, being convinced that socialism was the answer to the ills of mankind.

it is interesting looking back to see how tied my socialism was to my belief in determinism. Before any foray into philosophy, practically from the moment I dropped religion, I was convinced that free will was an illusion. I did not know such a theory even existed outside my own head, but it seemed clear that humans are impacted by the outside world the same way a stone or a tree is, and our movements are similarly determined. How did this tie into my radicalism? If there were such a lack of free will, the result of anyone’s position in society was there upbringing. The poor were poor because they were born into conditions destined to make them poor. The rich were rich by chance, being born into a wealthy family which had similarly won the lottery ticket of birth and been born into favorable circumstances. Having accepted this as true, what option was there other than to enforce a leveling on society, and ensure that all were given the same opportunity (and outcome). If no one was responsible for their position in life, what else could be fair? Of course, I was not so naive as to embrace a bare faced communism, the ideology which had caused the deaths of tens of millions and failed in practically all of it’s aims. I needed an alternative which was just as radical, but avoided the trappings of “orthodox communism”. Aided by reading a lot of Chomsky, I found this in anarchism, anrcho syndicalism, libertarian socialism or whatever other name is being used for it nowadays.

My faith in this belief system was also motivated by another thinker who I had come to love, Friedrich Nietzsche. As he is with many, Nietzsche was the first philosopher I read seriously,in fact, I did not just read him, i devoured him. Nietzsche opened my eyes to a terrible realisation I had somehow always avoided, unintentionally or not. If there was no God, if God really was dead, then everything was fundamentally meaningless. Concepts such as right or wrong, good or evil, better or worse, were just subjective preferences, statements of belief with no objective validity. This meant my passion for radicalism was basically just a silly little passion of mine. No system of governance was really better than another, because to believe that you had to believe in a right and wrong, and the reality we all faced was that in the end we will all die, all our suffering, all our joy, misery, success or failures will all come out in the wash the same. Infinity +1 is still infinity. However, I still had a strong sense of justice, and so I found a new, more Nietzchean way to justify my radicalism. A form of anarchism, it seemed, could be constructed which did not rely on resentment or the remnants of a Christian morality. Rather, this was a more positive system which sought to maximise the potential of all rather than maintain the narrow aims of ensuring everyone got their share of bread and water.

It would be much more simple to point out some moment where my whole perspective entirely changed, but belief is much more complex than that. Over the next few years I studied economics, politics and especially philosophy intently. I came to disregard Nietzsche and actually think him a quite worthless philosopher. I was drawn to the perennial philosophy. It seemed incredible to me to see the enormous similarity found in the doctrines of Eckhart and other Christian mystics, Lao Tzu, the Buddha, Sufism and the Upanishads. I especially took an interest in Eastern philosophy, and after intense study of it’s teachings saw Vedanta, the philosophical school of Hinduism, as the culmination of all philosophy, and it’s Brahman as being the absolute reality of which all religion attempts to express and celebrate. I also became convinced of the truth of idealism, and came to see materialism as an empty and fundamentally false philosophy, laced in error. During this time I became almost apolitical, I had given up on leftism, gradually feeling disdain for the tactics and arguments leftists used to advance their ideology, which to me seemed to appeal to nothing but man’s desire for comfort, before I had any stronger beliefs this always seemed to be an attitude worthy of disgust. I had hated the conservatives for always seeming to appeal to nothing but their constituents greed and desire to become wealthy, but now I realised those on the left appealed to desires just as base. People voted liberal or conservative, basically, based on which one would be most to their advantage, generally financial.

I came to see the whole of modern politics, and the whole of the modern world, as being built on a lie. The lie was never actually spoken, but it was ever present, underlying all discourse and argument. The lie was the promise of heaven on earth. It was the conviction that materialism was true, that God was dead and that the only real truth was the self. We can not believe anything to be absolutely true, and thus we can not believe that anything could be greater than the self, the medium which relegates these other potential truths to mere relativity. And the unavoidable conclusion of such belief is that the only path left for the human race is to pursue a logical path to both ever increasing personal freedom and manipulation of nature through science with the intent of increasing it’s potential to alleviate our suffering and increase our pleasure. The world is slowly moving from what remains of the Christian slave morality to a new utilitarian approach, which trusts in science and personal preferences to dictate the direction of human progress.

I realised this was the spirit of the age, and I detested every aspect of it. The utopianism, the promise of paradise on earth, that same promise which the communists and the fascists had used to justify their grave crimes against humanity. The positivism and scientism, which assumed science could answer all our questions, and anything that could not be answered in such a way was a not a meaningful question in the first place, thus relegating philosophy and religion without even bothering to debate them in any fair way. The belief that nothing was greater than pleasure. That art, education, literature, poetry, beauty, adventure, discovery, invention, religious experience, all of these only had worth in so far as they were enjoyable to the person experiencing them or benefited the survival and pleasure of the human race as a collective. That morality was non existent, that we could not condemn certain behavior or praise virtuous behavior. I detested these views, and I saw that they were not really separate beliefs at all, but rather branches on the one tree, sprouting from the one, fundamental belief which characterised the age they dominated. The belief was materialism. Liberals and conservatives are left and right on a spectrum which operates entirely in a materialist framework, a framework established during the Enlightenment by figures like Rousseau and Locke. Thus, the only alternative was not another place on that spectrum, another point on the compass, rather, the alternative would be to leave that spectrum entirely. To throw away materialism and modernism having accepted it’s failure, and to return to the kinds of beliefs which birthed Western civilization and all it’s fruits.

The alternative? Well, as the Traditionalist writers often point out, all religions have both an exoteric and an esoteric aspect. The exoteric aspect is that expressed to the masses, it is heaven and hell, God in heaven and people on earth, angels and demons, sins and sainthood. The esoteric aspect is that common to all religion. It is the mystical aspect, the one truth expressed by all great mystics and spiritual teachers, which the exoteric side is a simplified, doctrinal version of. These two options seem to be two alternatives to the modern dichotomy. In other words, one could embrace an exoterism, and thus embrace the absolute truth of one religion and struggle for it’s implementation as an alternative to the very post modern malaise we find ourselves in. The other option is esoterism, which would amount either to a form of paganism or an embrace of unity and detached, compassionate action, which could manifest politically as the promotion of spiritual seeking in all it’s forms. This is rather vague, and there’s a reason for that. The esoteric attitude is fundamentally a detached, apolitical one, which does not concern itself with the trivialities of organising the material world when the more fundamental task of achieving gnosis or enlightenment is ever present, and is something the individual must do alone. As such, embracing this spirit seems to land one in a new age, hoky, ultra liberal embrace of humanity which will struggle with relativity of liberalism, and which also lacks an absolute morality.

Thus, the solution, in my view, is a synthesis. A middle way between the esoteric and exoteric sides of traditionalism. This was the case in many ways while Europe was dominated by Christianity, for Christianity is perhaps the only religion which synthesises estoericism and exotericism It is exoterically esoteric, and it thus achieves the unity of the positive aspects of each. Thus, a Christian renaissance would be ideal for the kind of synthesis I believe is now desirable. Nevertheless, the point remains, that a return to the kind of traditionalism once enjoyed is not possible, as the subconscious prejudices and beliefs which enforced it have been challenged and called into question, and that alone is enough to derail the validity of the system they enforced. And so, my firm conviction is that our future, if we are to have one, rests in a ‘Neo Traditionalism’ which can find the best aspects of Traditionalism and a way to synthesise them with aspects of modern life and development which either will not or should not go away. The search for, promotion, and refinement of this viewpoint will be the purpose of this website.