Revolt against the Modern World (evola)

The best way to describe this book is as a “Pagan Systematic Theology.” That’s not entirely accurate, though. Julius Evola, though an enemy of Christianity, isn’t so stupid to think that the pagan gods actually exist. In fact, Evola is quite clear that the “God-principle” is at best removed, if non-existent.

Rather, paganism–or better, the ancient tradition–is an instantiation of the realm of the Forms. And as long as Evola sticks with quasi-Platonic concepts, he’s okay. In fact, he is quite insightful.

Evola as Anti-Positivist

The danger of the “unconscious:” It’s easy to criticize materialism and positivism as blocking man’s path up to God; but the occult religion opens the path below man–which is equally deadly (xii). While Evola’s larger vision is incompatible with Christianity, there is some truth in this: you simply do not want to “let yourself go” with your unconscious. That is how demons enter.

For Evola “Tradition” isn’t something proved or demonstrated. It is remembered. It just “is.” It’s origin is “nonhuman” (Evola xxxiv). Presumably by this he means “transcendent,” which would be “universal” (xxxv).


Key to his argument is the Doctrine of “two natures.” There is a superior realm of being and an inferior realm of becoming (3). The invisible element is always “more real” and anchors the visible.

The realm of “nature” was flux. It is an eternal state of “deprivation.” It reveals a lack of direction. Matter = becoming. There must be a transcendent order that gives meaning to this flux. This is where Evola advances the idea of “divine kingship” as a bridge between the two realms.

So far, so good.  This is Plato 101.


Kings in traditional societies were viewed as “mediators” (pontifex). They possessed a transcendent quality that allowed them to participate in the Forms. “The roots of authority always had a metaphysical character” (8). Kingship is often associated with the solar symbol. The solar glory denoted a metaphysical reality (9). The king draws his authority from the “above” and not from the earth.

The Law, The Empire, the State

A transcendent realism is the presupposition of law (21).Law has to have a divine character. Doctrine of the two natures reflects the relationship that exists between state and people. Legitimacy can never derive its principle from the demos (24).

So far all of this is good and is the same as you would find in any monarchist/anti-republican treatise. But Evola takes it several steps further in a) defending the Hindu caste system and in an open attack on Christianity.

In a harsh, cruel way the caste system makes sense. It reflects an ordered hierarchy. On the other hand, it seems that the people who actually like the caste system are already at the top (remember Uncle Ruckus’s defense of slavery?). Warning: Language.

Evola dislikes Christianity because it relativised the warrior caste society, or so he thinks. His understanding of Christianity is appallingly bad (though he does have some sympathy for Eastern Orthodoxy). His problem is that Christianity borrowed disparate elements from the different polar societies. Well, maybe so but that’s not a refutation. It’s a rebuttal.

There is little reason for me to offer a detailed refutation of his system.  In fact, I’m not sure why he cares.  He holds to a cyclical view of history and since Kali Yuga is about to end, we’ll get a go at it next go around.


Apologia pro (some) Islams

My recent review might strike one that I am “anti-Muslims.”  I understand that conclusion, but as usually the case with the Truth, it’s far more complex.  Here is how I look at the Islamic world:

(1) Islamic banking is infinitely superior to the parasitic system of the IMF.  It is why Gaddafi was murdered. In fact, Islamic banking borders on genius.

(2) Muslims would represent no threat to the West if they weren’t bolstered by the Anglo-Empire.

(3) On a spiritual level I cannot support Iran, given the brutality of the Revolutionary Guard and its treatment of Christians.  Politically, I see Iran as a heavy counterweight to the Global Regime.

(4) I understand Hamas’s reaction to Israel and largely sympathize with it.  Unfortunately, Hamas–or the PLO–has its own history of brutality.

(5) Hezbollah in its more modern form has occasionally created political space for Christians and minorities.

(6) I support the Muslim leader al-Assad.

Organic Communities

I have several goals in this post:

  1. Rebut extreme racism
  2. Rebut multiculturalism
  3. Show that the promoters of (2) secretly believe in (1).
  4. Point towards how all races and communities can flourish

What does the word racism mean?  Who invented it?  Are you scared when a Marxist calls you a racist?

Don’t lie.

I also want to mention the quasi-irrational fear that some “Trad Ox” have at being labeled “phyletist” or “racist.” Guys, you will not win an argument against Cultural Marxists. Own up to the term.

Let’s begin with a discussion of race, per Starbucks and Drug Lord Eric Holder. Multiculturalists will say “There is no such thing as race.”  If that’s true, then how can we have a discussion on race?  It’s like discussing unicorns.  Interesting, no doubt, but utterly pointless.

However, I don’t think race is a good lowest common denominator for how a community should be organized.  I was thinking last night, “I have far more in common with a middle class or rural black man than I do with a LGBTYQ university professor in New England.  Whom would I rather have as a neighbor?”   It’s kind of a self-explanatory question.  

Therefore, I reject the idea of one-race-only communities.   I reject it because it fails on the above two counts.

Multiculturalism is trickier.  Just what does one mean by the word?  It’s bandied about but rarely defined.  And some well-meaning Christians, armed with facile interpretations of Galatians 3:28, support multiculturalism.  Again what does it mean?

Df. (1) = different ethnic groups can live in the same geographic locale

Is that all that multiculturalism means?  If so, then the militantly nationalist Byzantine Empire is multicultural.   Before we begin, let’s look at a statement from St Augustine’s City of God Bk. 19.24.

[We] say that a people is an assemblage of rational beings bound together by a common agreement as to the objects of their love, then, in order to discover the character of any people, we have only to observe what they love.

Can different groups within one society hold to Augustine’s principle?  I think so, though it becomes harder and without some form of transcendental “grounding” it is borderline impossible.

For example, the Jihadi “migrant” wants to practice female circumcision.  I want to kill anyone who does that.  We have two different “loves.” Therefore, we cannot be a society.

Note, however, the above paragraph has nothing to do with “race.”  

So, we’ve concluded that modern uses of “multiculturalism” have little to do with df.(1).  We need to search for other definitions.

Df.(1*) = different ethnic groups must live in the same geographic locale.

I think this is close to the correct definition.  It explains the suicidal policies in Europe.  Fortunately, it’s easy to refute.  Whenever someone says this, just ask “Why?”  And keep asking that question.  Apart from some transcendental norm–which the modern world rejects–it’s difficult to answer.  You’ll probably get some answer like “Because it’s the current year. LOL.”

Point (3) is fun.  Trick question:  what’s the difference in the KKK’s neighborhood and that of a white liberal?  Tough, isn’t it? You are correct.  There is no difference.  They both live in all-white neighborhoods.  

Some in the black community have suggested that what black youth need are black male role models and mentors and teachers.  Specifically, they don’t need the liberal white savior (LWS).  So where does the idea of LWS arise?  Probably from liberal white politicians.  Proponents of (2) are actually endorsing (1).  By endorsing the LWS myth, proponents of (2) are saying that black males can’t do the job.  Liberal whites hold to a particularly nasty form of racism and one which I condemn in the strongest terms.

Of course, the elites who endorse multiculturalism have no intention of moving to inner-city Detroit.

How can different races live in harmony with each other?  This is where localism is just common sense.  The question we should actually be asking is this, “How can we best promote the flourishing of each neighborhood?”

Of course, no neighborhood is going to analyze its values in the abstract.  In fact, it probably won’t think of that at all.  Neighborhoods, while acknowledging that people plan to move into a neighboorhood, often just “happen.”  And they seem to “happen” along organic patterns.

Questions on Phyletism

Technically speaking, phyletism is the heresy that a church should be formed along ethnic lines.  Yeah, that sounds bad.  But when you get down to both (a) the history behind it and (b) modern chanters of phyletism, you will see that (a) the anti-phyletists were pimping their congregations and (b) the most phyletist churches today are in the loudest denouncers of anti-phyletism.

(1) Did Turkokratia sell the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the highest bidder, yes or no?
(2) Would that not mean that the EP bishops would have to come up with income to secure their spots?
(3) Would not this income have come from the taxed laymen in the Balkans?
(4) When the Bulgarians kicked out the foreign Phanariot bishops (many of whom were ranking Freemasons), did this not mean that the Phanar could no longer pay off their Turkish and Jewish creditors?

Answering yes to any of the above questions gives the lie to the “phyletist” charge.  Some more questions:

(5) To so-called phyletists today actually forbid different ethnicities from joining? (No)

Bourgeois Orthodox will point out that the Council of 1872 that condemned “phyletism” was a valid council.  Yeah, what of it?  You see, since I am not Eastern Orthodox I can easily say that said council is “wrong” because (1)-(4).


Defeating Jihad (review)

Dr T outlines the current plight of the West. He makes the argument that the post-Christian West, lacking a moral center, cannot withstand the onslaught of Islam. Unfortunately, the enemy today is not like the bane of Charles Martel. Our current enemy is invading the West by means of immigration, which our gutless politicians lack the spine to stop.
After immigrating they then implement the worst aspects of Islamic culture: Sharia law. They cannot help but do this. There is no such thing as moderate Islam. Islam divides the world into two houses: The House of Islam and the House of War.

Dr T shows how Western foreign policy in the Balkans destroyed a (historic, if not functional)Christian civilization (Serbia) and made Kosovo a channel for sex trafficking and drugs. T also hinted that Putin’s Russia will be the last stand against Islam. Read in conjunction with Robert Spencer’s *Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam,*

Responding to STRATFOR on Russia

George Friedman, founder of STRATFOR intelligence, did a video interview with Business Insider on Russia’s perceived weakness in the modern world.  STRATFOR has been called everything from the CIA’s lay informants to “The Economist One Week Later.”  Here’s the deal:  all of their facts are usually correct but all of their conclusions have always been wrong.

Examples of Being Wrong

  1. Did they really believe Russia would lose Crimea and Donetsk?
  2. Friedman claimed that Mexico would be a global power in the 21st century (Friedman, The Next 100 Years).

Before we get to Friedman’s specific interview, we need to identify some of the operating presuppositions,

  1. The European Union is a viable and sustainable trading bloc.
  2. The American Economy is as strong as it was in the days of Clinton.
  3. The most important value is material comfort.
  4. Accordingly, men will only fight for shekels or money.
  5. Since Russia doesn’t have a lot of shekels or money, Russia cannot win any war.
  6. Any war fought today will be a combination of WWII and Desert Storm.  Of course, Friedman is too smart to actually believe this.  Yet when comparisons are made between Russia and the West, it always between the West’s finest hours and Russia’s performance in Afghanistan.

Obviously, all of these are wrong.  Now for the video.

Friedman is correct that the European peninsula offers boundaries and borders that Russia does not have.  Further, he is correct that the loss of buffer states like the Baltics leaves Moscow open (though he doesn’t Transnistria).  After this he gets silly. He calls Belarus a neutral country.  This is false.  The West hate Belarus and Lukashenko more than it does Putin.  Luka. has to ally with Russia.  And the Belarussian army is as competent as any in Western Europe.  

He lists the loss of Ukraine as an important buffer to Russia. True, but the Ukrainian army was defeated by Novorossiya and the rest of the country is an economic wasteland.   

He says Turkey would win in a war against Russia because Turkey would blockade the Bosporus.  This means Russia would lose revenue from sales to America and Europe.  First of all, while this would harm the Russian economy, it wouldn’t harm it immediately. Secondly, this might just be the situation that lets Russia, in accordance with prophecy, retake Constantinople.

Of course there are the claims about “dying demography” (no different from Europe, though).  But the problem here is an immediate war, not a long-term population crisis.  Rebuttals to STRATFOR


The Atlantic. (this one is hilarious)