Montesquieu on the motives that ought to move free peoples to study the sciences.

The difference between great nations and savage peoples is that the former have applied themselves to the arts and sciences, while the latter have totally neglected them. Perhaps most nations owe their existence to the knowledge that the arts and sciences provide. If we had the mores of the American savages, two or three European nations would soon devour all the others; and then perhaps some people conquering our world would boast, like the Iroquois, of having devoured seventy nations.

Nietzsche on History for Life

Nietzsche’s second ‘Unfashionable Observation’ is a very important work.
Continue reading Nietzsche on History for Life…

First stage of consciousness

In the beginning the world was nothing but the Atman, in the form of a man. It looked around and saw nothing different to itself. Then it cried out once, ‘It is I.’ That is how the word ‘I’ came to be. That is why even at the present day, if any one is called, he answers, ‘It is I,’ and then recalls his other name, the one he bears.” –(Brihadâranyata- Upanishad. )

In demonstrating the potential development of the increasing awareness of “I” consciousness, Evola builds on themes from the following books:

“Persuasion and Rhetoric”, by Carlo Michelstaedter
“The World as Will and Representation” , by Arthur Schopenhauer
“The Ego and its Own”, by Max Stirner
“Sex and Character”, by Otto Weininger

The last named book was translated by Evola into Italian. There is one particular chapter — The “I” Problem and Genius — that may be helpful before tackling Evola’s short book. For convenience, I have made it available here:

The I Problem and Genius.

For a sneak peak, click here: Individual and the Becoming of the World.

« La “démocratie athénienne” était un mensonge » entretien avec le Dr Bernard Plouvier

Le Dr Bernard Plouvier, historien, auteur de plusieurs livres, vient de publier Réflexions sur le Pouvoir (collections « À nouveau siècle, nouveaux enjeux », éditions Dualpha).

Bernard Plouvier, une notion qui apparaît dans votre livre, c’est la liaison entre utopie et politique. A priori, ce sont deux notions plutôt opposées. La politique, c’est l’art de diriger une nation ou un Etat. L’utopie, c’est le moyen de faire rêver dans l’absolu, sans obligation de résultat ! Or, vous semblez dire et écrire que l’un et l’autre font bon ménage.

Today’s sibylline email

krishnan unni.p wrote:

I love Cioran as a pessimist and as a wonderful scholar in Philosophy and other things.Remember his pessimism is very positive for us.

No idea what that means.

Philosophic Idealism

It is easy to be unaware that up until World War II, idealism was the dominant philosophical position of Europe. In the 18th and 19th century, the Germans – particularly Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer – took the leading role in its development. Later, the Britons such as Green, Bradley, Bosanquet, Collingwood took it in their own direction. In France, it usually went by the name of personalism or spiritualism. In Italy, while Evola was a young man, philosophy was dominated by the idealists Benedetto Croce and Giovanni Gentile. It’s hard to believe that at their peak, they were world-renowned philosophers. Although friends and collaborators, they split over the question of Fascism. Gentile was for a while the education minister and his philosophical system was very influential in moulding the intellectual roots of Fascism.

Yet idealism was not a modern development; the mainstream of Western philosophy is the history of idealistic thought. When the European orientalists began studying, translating, and cataloguing the early Indo-Europeans systems of the Vedas, its compatibility with idealism was noted. So, idealism can rightly be seen as “our” tradition and competitors such as realism and materialism are more like a persistent anti-tradition. I would recommend the short book “Nobilitas” by Alexander Jacob for a summary of this tradition from Plato until World War II. Ironically, Prof. Jacob is a Hindu who is keeping the Western philosophical tradition alive, when Europeans are abandoning it.

Evola’s was heir to this tradition and his intellectual development took place in the milieu of Italian idealism in the 1920s. In order to study idealism thoroughly, Evola learned German so he could read the philosophical sources in their original language. Out of his studies, he created his own system which he named absolute idealism, or “magical idealism”. In “The Individual and the Becoming of the World”, Evola ties together the main elements of his system. One can perhaps recognize Schopenhauer when Evola speaks of in the world as will and his representation, or Stirner in the idea of the Absolute Ego, and Plotinus in the idea of privation and the evil of matter.

But Evola was not content in outlining an abstract intellectual system. Ultimately, there can be no system per se, since what is important is the will and the development of its freedom to create, remake, and define the world. This means that without having made the effort at self-transformation through the various phases of consciousness, then his system cannot be properly comprehended. So ultimately, Evola’s system cannot be reduced to a set of propositions to learn and memorize. Nor is there any technique, drug, or practice that will develop the will and lead to higher stages of consciousness.

In our day, when “tough minded” thinkers are drawn to science and materialism (the neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins was recently “voted” the most intelligent man in Britain), the claims of idealism can seem incredible. Since Evola simply assumes a basic familiarity with this tradition, it may be difficult sometimes to see what he is getting at. For those new to idealism, I would recommend “The Philosophy of Schopenhauer” by Bryan Magee for a clear overview of the presuppositions and methods of idealism. Whether or not Evola adds to this tradition in a coherent and constructive way is for each man—who has made the requisite effort —to decide.

Repressive Intolerance

We have all heard about the situation in the E.U. and Canada. However, I have yet to read why all this is happening. Why have these countries criminalized all criticism of multiculturalism? It’s still somewhat of a puzzle to me.

A select few who see the peril to which their neighbors are oblivious and who proceed to save their community against overwhelming odds, is a familiar literary and cinematic concept. Earlier this month (May 11-12) I had the pleasure of addressing one such real-life group in the capital of Austria, where some sixty activists from 16 European countries and the United States attended a symposium with the self-explanatory title, Counter-Jihad Vienna 2008: Defending Civil Liberties in Europe.

Fanatical Yankee Utopians

In his brilliant LRC article, “The Yankee Problem in America,” Clyde Wilson describes how America came to be ruled by a peculiar sect of religious, statist fanatics that originated in New England and became known as “Yankees.” Not all Northerners are/were “Yankees,” Professor Wilson wrote, for many are obviously fine people. He was referring to “that peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around.” They “have never given up the notion that they are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.” Today we would call them “neocons” or “Hillary Clinton supporters.”

A country that defies liberal assumptions

Even if we believe that authoritarian China is on the wrong side of history, says John Lee, so far it is doing a remarkable job of defying it…

Métapolitique - Homo sovieticus, homo americanus ? (Entretien avec Tomislav Sunic)

Tomislav Sunic, essayiste croate et traducteur, ayant longuement séjourné aux États-Unis où il a enseigné la science politique, vit actuellement dans son pays d’origine. Il a récemment publié un ouvrage intitulé Homo Americanus. Child of the Postmodern Age, BookSurge, Charleston 2007, 15.99 $, avec une préface de l’historien Kevin MacDonald. L’auteur a accepté de s’expliquer sur le parallèle suggéré par son titre, de prime abord audacieux, avec l’homo sovieticus de Zinoviev.

Interesting articles

Dissident Congress.

Thoughts du jour on colonialism and slavery

One often hears in these days of White racial decline and decadence Whites apologize for colonialism and slavery (apologies made by people who had nothing to do with the alleged misdeeds, by the way…in my naiveté I thought that one could only apologize for things he or she had done…most reasonable people would agree that to expect from me that I apologize for what my great grandfather might have done would be insane, but we don’t live in a rational world insofar as White history is concerned), but let me ask the following fundamental question: why should Whites say that they are sorry for vanquishing and dominating other people and races? Why apologize for being smarter, stronger, better, more advanced, more virile, more manly, more energetic; in sum, SUPERIOR? Why is being vanquished, dominated, subjugated, overpowered, crushed, defeated, ruled a virtuous thing? In ancient times, the Greeks were happy to boast that they vanquished their enemies the Persians, and that therefore the Greek warrior must be superior to the Persian warrior. Like all healthy, strong races, they took pride in their victories and denigrated their erstwhile enemies! The Greeks wrote reams of poems celebrating their victories on the battlefield and their philosophers gave impassioned orations praising Greek superiority!

Both colonialism and slavery have been with us since time immemorial; for instance, the Arabs expanded from the 7th century to the 12th century from the Arabian Peninsula to rule the world! In the process, they enslaved those foreigners they vanquished (mostly sub-Saharan Africans of whom they had a very low opinion, but that’s for another post).

Moreover, I have even heard Dr. David Duke, a man for whom I have immense respect, say in an interview that Whites don’t want to dominate other races. In my view, this is a further indication or symptom of our racial decline, corruption, and weakness. A spokesman of a winning, dominating race doesn’t speak in such terms. In some ways, such talk is similar to today’s Roman Catholic Church apologizing for the Inquisitions and the Crusades. It’s just another sign of her institutional weakness. When the Roman Catholic Church was strong and powerful, she didn’t seek anyone’s forgiveness hat in hand! On the contrary, she proudly denied basic civic rights to her critics, waged ruthless wars against all internal dissidents, showed no mercy for outsiders, and was knee deep in the blood of her enemies.

Oh tempora, oh mores!

Alain Soral: Interview

An interesting interview with professional provocateur Alain Soral [in French]. I have yet to hear someone who’s more in love with himself than him.

The entire interview can be seen here.

Primordial Traditions

The June installment of Primordial Traditions features the following articles:

Primordial Traditions June 2008 (2.5 MB)

Invincible Sun: The Cult of Mithras

by Matt Hajduk

Islamic Tradition and the Muslim Hadith

by Troy Southgate

Knowledge is Power: Rune Magic in Germanic Culture

by Stephen M. Borthwick

The Moral Argument for the Existence of God

by Ajita Krishna Dasa

Transience, Tradition and the Transcendent

by Anthony Trebilcock

To download please direct your web browser to:

http://www.primordialtraditions.com/

New Right Yahoo Group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-right-online

EUROPE * TRADITION * METAPOLITICS

LAUNCHED in January 2005 at an inaugural meeting in Central London, the New Right is organised throughout Europe and beyond. Seeking to attract men and women from a variety of intellectual, cultural and esoteric backgrounds, we are strongly opposed to liberalism, democracy and egalitarianism and fight to restore the eternal values and principles that have become submerged beneath the corrosive tsunami of the modern world. However, the New Right is not a political organisation and instead concentrates on the following subjects:

* PRIMORDIAL TRADITION (Evola, Guenon, Eliade)

* REVOLUTIONARY CONSERVATISM (Moeller van den Bruck, Spengler, Niekisch, Salomon, Junger, Strasser brothers, Thiriart, Bowden)

* NOUVELLE DROIT (Schmitt, De Benoist, Faye, Steuckers, Krebs, Walker, Sunic)

* EURASIANISM (Gumilev, Parvulesco, Zyuganov, Dugin)

* ANARCHISM OF THE RIGHT (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Gyp, Landauer, Southgate)

The New Right publishes a metapolitical journal entitled ‘New Imperium’ and organises regular meetings in Central London. Speakers have included Alexander Dugin, Lady Renouf, Norman Lowell, Jonathan Bowden, Alexander Baron, Tord Morsund, Keith Thompson, Father Andrew Phillips, Arlette Baldacchino, Michael Woodbridge, Brian Clough, Wulf, Davide Moiso, Alistair Clarke, Rupert Bell and Actuaris.

RECOMMENDED READING

New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern European by Michael O’Meara
Against the Modern World: Traditionalism & the Secret Intellectual History of the 20th Century by Mark Sedgwick
Men Among the Ruins: Post-War Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist by Julius Evola
Against Democracy & Equality: The European New Right by Tomislav Sunic
‘Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age’ by Tomislav Sunic

Contact address: New Right, BM Box LCRN, London WC1N, England
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-right-online

Thinkers of the Right: Challenging Materialism [a book to read]

Spengler.

RISKING VILIFICATION, BOYCOTT AND CENSURE from the majority of their fellow scholars, who sold themselves for popularity and money, the “non-conformist” authors published within this rare volume were looking for alternatives to meet the many crises of the 20th century (most of the issues they wrote about are still unresolved here in the 21st), including a return to aristocracy or to the “new” doctrine of fascism. These “literati” of the Right spoke to the soul, rather than to money or the stock market. They asked the kinds of questions about industrialization, democracy and the rise of the money power that have yet to be answered. Despite their persecution, this dissident minority has had a lasting impact on our cultural heritage, albeit one that must contend with the deluge of the banal promoted by Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Includes essays from Spengler, Nietzsche, D.H. Lawrence, D’Annunzio, Marinetti, Hamsun, Ezra Pound, Wyndham Lewis, Roy Campbell, Stephenson, Fairburn, Mishima and Evola. By K.R. Bolton.

Get it here.

The Spiritual Foundations of the New Europe by Dr. Otto Dietrich

An excerpt:

The basic element in the political concept of National Socialism is that of the national state. It has no ambition to make imperial conquests, but strives after inner collectivity and national concentration. And the clear proof of this is the unprecedented organization by National Socialism of that tremendous return migration of racial Germans, the return of German blood to the Motherland.

The political conception of the national state is not directed towards a frittering away of power by outward expansion, but towards rational internal construction and the safeguarding of the national standard of existence. It has enforced the idea that relations between states can be made more permanent if the prospect of the nations is clear and determined and if leadership is responsibly and authoritatively rooted in the nation.

The organization of life in our present-day Germany reflects internal national and political determination and externally also shows definite lines of conduct. The ideas and the driving force of National Socialism are directed exclusively towards peace, as long as the indispensable bases of existence and security are guaranteed to our nation of 85 millions living within the heart of Europe. National Socialist Germany has been forced to fight, because the principles of imperialism and world domination of the Anglo-Saxons negate the simplest preliminary conditions for the development of our peace-loving nation. It was for this reason that they declared war on us. Britain is conducting a war of destructive force against constructive organization in the life of nations. The fact that National Socialist Germany has proved itself to be stronger than its aggressor in a war which has been forced upon it, is no proof of the violence of its principles, but only of the strength inherent in its ideal of order.

They say: “We are fighting for the democratic way of life. We are fighting for the liberty of living our lives as we wish.” But National Socialism has no intention of preventing them from doing so. It holds the opinion that every nation should live its own internal life in accordance with its own desires. The crimes they attribute to us are in reality committed by themselves. In no single country in the world does there exist such a great and disgusting intolerance of the mode of living of others as in the Anglo-Saxon countries. This intolerance is carried on hypocritically in the name of liberty, a liberty the real character of which I have already described.

Our adversaries maintain that this is a war of democracy against tyranny that makes it necessary either to unmask these political play-actors or else to open the eyes of their public to their true nature.

I may be allowed here to quote a neutral scholar, who a short while ago wrote an article “Hitler and the Democracies.” He asked the question why the Führer should be an opponent of the democracies, as he was one of the people himself and as president of the most democratic republic in the world was constantly in sincere and direct contact with the people. During his examination this scholar comes to the conclusion that only the modern democracies, France, Britain and America in particular, apparently had something in common with the will of the people. In reality it was only a pretext for party interests and the compensatory business of a few political circles among the upper classes. The mistakes of liberal democracy had already been made by its founders who had introduced into it their own material and utilitarian outlook and economic individualism. All this had been shamefully decorated by the founders of liberal democracy behind a facade of idealism. They themselves had never honestly believed in the catchwords of “Liberty,” “Equality” and “Fraternity,” which they had invented. In these so-called Western democracies, power was not actually upheld by the people, but a few thousand capitalists. The functioning of democracy merely concealed the selfishness of a small minority living in ease and comfort.

These statements hit the nail on the head. One should not always only talk of democracy, but for once answer the question: “What is ‘democracy‘? What does it actually mean?”

If democracy is no more than invisible domination by a few, achieved by means of money and the fabrication of public opinion, then our opponents are right in calling themselves democracies. But if democracy really denotes government by the people, then it is not they, but we, who are the democrats. We attach no particular value to decorating ourselves with this word that has become so compromised on account of its political past. But if the plutocrats make use of it to camouflage their domination and to deceive the people, then it is necessary to make its meaning perfectly clear. Whoever studies the conception of the National Socialist state in its innermost structure and practical functioning is bound to recognize that it is the most modern government of the people in history. It demonstrates the principles of responsibility and leadership in the truly national state, in opposition to the anonymous principles of degenerate democracy. It regards the will of the people not as a dead parliamentary majority to be gained by money or financial influence, but recognizes it continually in the permanent and direct alliance with the life of the people itself. The National Socialist Party is, therefore, not a party in the parliamentary sense, but simply and positively the party of the German nation. It is the great guardian of the social conscience of the nation, it holds its hand on the pulse of the people, it feels its slightest stirrings, its anxieties and its needs, its requirements and its desires, its pleasure and its pain. It is its helper and adviser and the unceasing bearer of its suggestions to the higher authorities. It has entrusted hundreds of thousands of citizens of all professions and classes with political responsibility, thereby providing tens of thousands of politically tested Germans with the opportunity of advancement to leading positions in the Reich. It has linked the perpetual stream of youth, organically and eternally, with the life of the nation and has created a system for the selection of leaders, which compels future generations to play their uninterrupted and vital part. Tangible shape is thereby given not to the will of a questionable parliamentary majority, but to the true will of the people. By its principles of training, efficiency and selection of leaders, it has given the nation a wonderfully functional system with the rhythm of strength continually renewing itself.

Nearly 2,500 years ago Plato wrote in his “Laws” that the most excellent constitution of a nation was that which was successful in persuading the masses to submit voluntary and in raising the most intelligent in their midst to leadership. The new principle of national and political leadership developed by the highly gifted leaders of Germany and Italy has made these sublime political concepts reality. When today the messiahs of democracy and the plutocrats talk contemptuously of “dictatorships,” their intellectual arrogance only conceals the stain of ignorance or the essence of hypocrisy which fears nothing so much as the realization of truth by the awakening of the nations.

Buy the little monograph here.

Read also The Führer and the German People.

With Hitler on the Road to Power (1934).

Die philosophischen Grundlagen des Nationalsozialismus “The Philosophical Foundations of National Socialism.”

Julius Evola: A Justified Pessimism?

This interview serves as an excellent summary of the major themes that concerned Evola over the long course of his career. It also demonstrates the consistency of his point of view from the 1920s until the 1960s.

justifiedpessimism.pdf

The Decline of the “Old Right” Didn’t Start With Bush

George W. Bush should be the poster boy for Hayek’s dictum of Why the Worst Get On Top; in other words, he is the worst. His statements are the worst; virtually everything that comes out of his mouth is either stupid, illiterate, ill informed, false and/or a lie (e.g.; “Major combat operations have ended,” “I’m the decider.”). His administration is the worst, responsible for putting the US in its worst condition in terms of the economy, military readiness, international standing, education, and medical care. From the 2000 election to the present, Bush and his administration have consistently and successfully worked to undermine the remains of the constitutional republic that was the United States.

Neither Paleoconservatism nor Libertarianism Will Save You, White Man!

My comment:

That was a nice piece, Hajo Liaucius. It needs some serious editing, though, as I had to re-read a few sentences twice or thrice just to get the jist of it. Do I know you under a different nom de plume? I’ll link to it on my blog. I’ve recently immersed myself in interwar German Revolutionary Conservative theory (of which German National Socialism was an offshoot) and I see some similarities between your ideas and the athors I’m reading now. After reading my stack of German Revolutionary Conservative authors (if you can, read the primary sources, I don’t trust post-war, Judeo-Saxon “interpretations”) I’d like to write an essay on German Revolutionary Conservatism and its child National Socialism. I’ll post it on my blog when I’m done. Your comments would be welcome, of course.

As a distant observer of the American “White Nationalist scene” I am struck by it’s utter irrelevancy in public discourse outside of being a fund raising tool for anti-Occidental activists and as a subject of lurid speculation. In part, this distressing situation is a product of the typical pathologies and corruption endemic to counter culture groups but I am not inclined to cover the endless scandals that have in large part defined the “White Nationalist scene” during the last 50 years or so. Although though the character issue must be addressed for now I’ll concern myself with the issue of what Occidental advocacy presently entails in terms of an ideological foundation.