Arktos Journal – Arktos Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:38:23 +0000 en-GB hourly 1 The Roman Conception of Victory Mon, 10 Feb 2020 16:29:14 +0000 Sallust uses the expression ‘extremely religious mortals’1 to describe the early Romans, and there is a saying by Cicero that ancient Roman civilisation superseded every other people or nation (omnes gentes nationesque superavimus)2 for its sense of the sacred. Analogous testimonies can be found in many variations in many other ancient writers. Against the prejudices of a certain kind of historiography, which persists in evaluating Ancient Rome only from the juridical and political point of view, we hold that the effectively spiritual and sacred content of Ancient Romanness must be brought to the fore, and indeed should be considered the most important element thereof, since it can easily be shown how the political, juridical and ethical forms of Rome in the last analysis took as their basis and common origin precisely a special religious vision, a special kind of human relation to the supersensible world.

Against the prejudices of a certain kind of historiography we hold that the effectively spiritual and sacred content of Ancient Romanness should be considered the most important element thereof.

Only that this relationship differed considerably from that which was to become paramount to the beliefs that subsequently came to predominate. The Roman, as ancient and traditional man in general, conceived of a meeting and a reciprocal interpenetration between divine forces and human forces. A special sense of history and of time was contained in this, as we ourselves have had occasion to draw to our the reader’s attention, whilst discussing a book by Franz Altheim. The Roman found the locus of divine manifestation, not so much in the space of pure contemplation, detached from the world, nor in the immobile, silent symbols of a hyperkosmia, an ‘overworld’, but rather in time and in history and in everything which unfolds through human action. He thus experienced his history more or less in the terms of a ‘sacred history’, or at least a ‘fateful history’: and this was so from the very earliest days of Rome. In his Life of Romulus, Plutarch writes that ‘Rome would not have succeeded in gaining so much power if it had not had in some way a divine origin, such as might offer to the eyes of men something of the great and inexplicable’.3

From here arose the typically Roman conception of an invisible and ‘mystical’ counterpart to the visible and tangible part of the human world. It is for this reason that every explication of Roman life, be it individual, collective, or political, was accompanied by a rite. And from here, too, came the peculiar conception that the Roman had of the fatum: the fatum was not for him, as it had been for late Grecian antiquity, a blind power; rather it was the divine order unfolding in the world, to be interpreted and understood by means of an adequate science, in order that the effective directions of human action might be presaged – directions by which human action might attract a force from on high, toward the ends, not only of gaining success, but also of producing a kind of transfiguration and higher justification.

As these ideas were extended in Ancient Rome to every facet of reality, they were also reaffirmed in the domain of military ventures, of battle, of heroism and of victory. From here we see precisely what those scholars miss, who consider the Ancient Romans essentially as a race of half barbarians, a race who through the brute force of arms alone imposed themselves on the world, taking from other peoples — the Etruscans, the Greeks and the Syriacs — whatever they possessed of true and authentic culture. It is rather the case that Ancient Romanness possessed a particular mystical conception of war and of victory, a conception whose importance has curiously escaped the notice of scholars of Romanness. These last confine themselves to distractedly alluding to the many related and well-documented Roman traditions.

It was an essentially Roman opinion that, if a war was to be won materially, it needed first be won – or at least propitiated – mystically. After the battle of Trasimene, Fabius told the soldiers, ‘Your fault was more in having neglected the sacrifices and in having ignored the warnings of the augurs, than in having lacked in courage or ability’.4 No Roman war was commenced without sacrifices, and a special college of priests – the fetiales – was charged with the rites relative to war, which could be considered a ‘just war’, iustum bellum, only insofar as it undertook these rites. As de Coulanges has already had occasion to note, the basis of the military art of the Romans originally consisted in avoiding being forced to fight when the gods were against it — which is to say, when no concordance of human forces and forces from on high could be ascertained through ‘fatal’ signs.

In this way too the centre of military affairs fell on a plane which was more than merely human – just as both the sacrifice and the heroism of the combatant were considered more than merely human. The Roman conception of victory is of particular importance here.

According to this conception, every victory has a mystical side, in the most objective sense of the term: in the victor, in the leader, in the imperator acclaimed on the fields of battle, one had the sense of a sudden manifestation of divine force which transfigured this figure and transcended his humanity. The same warrior’s rite according to which the imperator (in the original sense of the word, not of ‘emperor’, but of victorious leader) was carried on a special shield, is not without its symbolic counterpart, as can be inferred from Ennius: the shield, which was already sacred in the Capitoline temple of Jove, is equivalent to the altisonum coeli clupeum, the celestial sphere, beyond which the man who had triumphed would be lifted by his victory.

Unequivocal and significant confirmations of this ancient Roman conception are offered in the nature of the liturgy and the pomp surrounding a triumph. We speak of ‘liturgy’ because the character of this ceremony, with which every victor was honoured, was considerably more religious than it was military. The victorious leader here was presented as a kind of manifestation or visible incarnation of the Olympian god himself, from which he drew all of his marks and attributes. The quadriga drawn by white horses corresponded to that of the solar god of the luminous sky, just as the mantle of the triumphant leader, the purple toga embroidered with golden stars, reproduced the heavenly and stellar mantle of Jupiter. The golden crown was as the sceptre held aloft by that same sacred deity. And the winner painted his countenance with minium, precisely as in the cult of the temple of the Olympian god, before whom he then presented himself, solemnly depositing the triumphal laurel of his victory at the feet of the statue of Jove, signifying thereby that Jove was the true author of his victory and that he had won essentially as a divine force, as a force of Jove himself: whence the ritual identification between the two in the ceremony.

The noteworthy circumstance, moreover, that the paludamentum5 which here indicated the triumphant leader corresponded to that of the ancient Roman kings, might give rise to other considerations: it might be reducible to the fact, as Altheim has highlighted, that even before the first definition of the triumphal ceremony of the king, in the Priscan Roman conception, this paludamentum likewise appeared as an image of celestial divinity. The divine order, over which this image presided, is reflected and manifested in the human order, which is centred precisely on the king. In this regard – in this conception which, as various other first things,6 was then to re-emerge in the imperial period – Rome bears witness to a tradition of universal bearing, one which is to be found in an entire cycle of great civilisations: in the Indo-Aryan and Aryo-Iranic world, in Ancient Greece, in Ancient Egypt, in the Far East.

But so as not to drift away from our subject, let us mention another characteristic element of the Roman conception of victory. Precisely because it was not considered a merely human fact, the victory of a leader often assumed for the Romans the traits of a numen, of an independent divinity, whose mysterious life became the centre of a special system of rites aimed at nourishing it and confirming its invisible presence amongst men.

The best-known example is constituted by the Victoria Caesaris. Every victory, it was believed, actuated a new centre of forces, one disconnected from the particular individuality of the mortal man who had realised it; or, if you prefer, the victor, through victory, himself became a force subsisting in an almost transcendent order, a force not of some victory accomplished at a specific historical moment, but – precisely as the Roman expression had it – of a ‘perpetual or perennial’ victory. The cult of such entities, which was decreed by the law, was intended to stabilise, so to speak, the presence of this force, that it might invisibly join with the force of the race, leading it toward outcomes favoured by ‘fortuna’, and thus making of new victories the means of revealing and further reinforcing the energy of the first. And thus it is that in the celebration of the dead Caesar in Rome, confounded with that of his victory and consecrated to the Victoria Caesaris of the games, thereby transforming into a significant ritual, Caesar could be considered a ‘perpetual victor’.

The cult of Victory can be called more generally the secret soul of Roman greatness and of Roman faith in its own fated destiny.

The cult of Victory, which has been judged prehistoric in its origins, can be called more generally the secret soul of Roman greatness and of Roman faith in its own fated destiny. From the times of Augustine, the statue of the goddess Victory had been placed on the altar of the Roman Senate, and it was even a rite that each senator, before taking his place in the chambers, must pass before that altar and burn a sprig of grain before it as incense. The force of Victory thus seemed to preside invisibly over the deliberations of the curia. It was also customary to extend one’s hands toward that same image when, at the advent of a new Prince, one swore fidelity, and then again on 3 January of each year, when solemn vows were taken, in the senate, for the health of the emperor and for the prosperity of the empire. Particularly worthy of notice is the fact that this was the longest-lasting Roman cult from the days of so-called ‘paganism’ — it was the ‘pagan’ cult which longest resisted Christianity, after the destruction of all the others had been effected.

Other considerations could be made on the Roman notion of the mors triumphalis, the ‘triumphal death’, which presented various characteristics. We might speak of this on another occasion. Here we want only to add something regarding the special aspect of heroic dedication, connected to the Ancient Roman concept of devotio. This expresses what might in modern terms be called a ‘tragic heroism’, but it itself is tied to a sense of the supersensible forces and to a higher, very clear, end goal.

In Ancient Rome, devotio did not signify ‘devotion’ in the modern sense of the meticulous and fearful practice of a religious cult. It was rather a ritual warrior action, in which one made a sacrifice of oneself, consciously dedicating one’s own life to the ‘nether’ powers, whose unleashing, by producing an irresistible power in oneself and panic in one’s enemies, would contribute to victory. This was a rite formally decreed by the Roman state as a supernatural weapon to be used in desperate cases, whenever it was believed that the enemy could surely not be overcome with normal forces.

We know from Livy all the details of this tragic rite, and even the solemn, evocatory and sacrificial formula that the man who intended to sacrifice himself for victory was to pronounce, repeating after the pontifex, who was dressed in the praetexta,7 with veiled head, his hand poised on his chin and his foot upon a javelin. After which he would hurl himself into the fray, as though conjuring a fatal force, to find death therein.8 There were patrician Roman families in which this tragic rite was almost a tradition: for instance the line of the Deci practised it in 340 B.C. in the war against the rebelling Latins, then in 295 in the war against the Samnites, and in 79 in the battle of Asculum: almost as if it had been the ‘law of their family’, as Livy puts it.

As a purely interior attitude, this sacrifice, in its perfect lucity and willingness, might remind one of that which occurs even today in the warfare of Japan: we know of special torpedoes or Japanese aeroplanes that go hurtling with their crew against their target; and here, too, sacrifice, almost always carried out by members of the ancient warrior aristocracy, by the samurai, is tied to a rite possessing a mystical aspect. The difference is surely that here one does not aim to the same extent at an action which is something more than merely material, at a true and authentic evocation, as in the ancient Roman theory of devotio.

And naturally, the modern and above all Western environment, on account of a thousand causes which have become, shall we say, constitutional through the centuries, makes it extremely difficult to draw forces from behind the curtains, and to give to every gesture, to every sacrifice, to every victory a transfiguring significance, similar to those which we have indicated here. It is nonetheless certain that, even today, in this wild and unbridled moment, to feel oneself no longer alone on the fields of battle, to have some presentiment, despite everything, of relations with an order more than merely human and pathways which are not measured by the values of this visible reality alone — it is certain, I say, that all of this might become the fountainhead for a force and an imperviousness, whose effects, on every level, could not be overestimated.


1Bellum Catilinae, 13.

2De Haruspicum Responsis, IX, 19.

3Life of Romulus, I, 8.

4Livy, Ad Urbe Condita Libri, Book XVII, 9. Cf. XXXI, 5; XXXVI, 2; XLII, 2.

5That is, the cape attached to one shoulder which often accompanied military men of high rank, as is indicated by any number of Ancient Roman statuary portraits of the same. — Ed.

6Italian: come varie altre delle origini, literally ‘like various other origins’. — Ed.

7A ceremonial white toga trimmed in purple which distinguished certain royal and priestly functions and functionaries. — Ed.

8Ad Urbe Condita Libri, VIII, 9.

]]> 3
James Madison: Enlightenment and Republican Ideology Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:10:34 +0000 On 4 October 2019 Hillary Clinton, tweeted a 1974 quote by Rep. Barbara Jordan. It reads: “If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder!”1 Surely, this is not the veneration for the supreme law of the United States which James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,”2 would have wished for.3 While the Constitution is indeed an eighteenth-century document, it encompasses ideas that are much older, and at the same time stunningly up-to-date. The 1787 debates recorded by said James Madison reveal the delegates’ deep knowledge of political theories ranging from those of Greek and Roman antiquity up to those characterizing their present day. Not only were they familiar with the European Enlightenment ideas popularized first and foremost by John Locke, David Hume and Montesquieu, but also with the works of the Renaissance thinker Niccolò Machiavelli. Other influences can be traced to Thomas Hobbes as well as to the Puritans’ Calvinist theology.4

I would be as much opposed to any traditionalist system that would rid itself of all Renaissance and Enlightenment ideas as I am opposed to this current system in which ethnic Europeans are being replaced by non-whites.

Two main dichotomies between the most eminent Founding Fathers have been discovered and highlighted by scholars: the dichotomy between Federalists (most notably Alexander Hamilton) and Jeffersonians on the one hand, and that between Constitutionalists and Democrats, the former sometimes termed Madisonians, on the other.5 Walter F. Murphy ascribes a stark pessimism about human nature to Constitutionalists and asserts that “they are concerned, sometimes obsessed with humanity’s propensity to act selfishly and abuse power.”6 In the opinion of men like Madison, this abuse of power was not limited to monarchies or oligarchies. It may also occur in democracies in the form of mob rule when a tyrannical majority tramples on the rights of a minority. The Encyclopaedia Britannica therefore divides civic republicanism into neo-Athenian republicanism (Jefferson) and neo-Roman republicanism (Madison).7 I will argue in this essay that although both Jefferson and Madison expressed ideas which Bernard Bailyn and Gordon S. Wood, among others, have described as republican ideology,8 Madison had even more in common with Scottish Enlightenment thinkers than with his fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson. While I am fully aware of the fact that this assertion goes against the grain of some contemporary scholars’ works, which have instead highlighted the life-long friendship and collaboration of the two Founding Fathers,9 I find the evidence of Scottish Enlightenment thought in Madison’s writings too compelling to be brushed aside.

Just a few weeks ago I visited Edinburgh, the “Athens of the North,” and was swept off my feet by the old city’s charm. During Madison’s time, the Reformation and the insistence on reading the Bible in vernacular had produced a literacy rate in Scotland that was probably unrivaled in Europe at the time. Literate people were reaching for other (better) books, and philosophers as well as ingenious inventors sprouted up out of the ground like mushrooms in Scotland’s cities. While my friend John Bruce Leonard, with whom I had a conversation about “republicanism” on the Arktos podcast channel a little while ago,10 is not particularly fond of the humanistic Enlightenment, I view it as a glorious part of our history. I would be as much opposed to any traditionalist system that would rid itself of all Renaissance and Enlightenment ideas as I am opposed to this current system in which ethnic Europeans are being replaced by non-whites. I believe it is possible to find a middle ground (Richard White) between tradition and the Faustian spirit displayed by modern (not postmodern) Europeans. William Luther Pierce describes the Faustian element in one of his speeches as follows: “The Faustian urge in our race-soul says to us: ‘Thou shalt not rest or be content, no matter what thy accomplishments. Thou must strive all the days of thy life. Thou must discover all things, know all things, master all things.’”11 This being said, all I wish to do in this essay, is to prove one of the points Leonard makes in his excellently written book The New Prometheans: Even the more conservative figures among the Founding Fathers (as well as European conservatives such as Edmund Burke, the “father of conservatism”) viewed the world through the progressive lens of the Enlightenment.12 I will start this examination of Madisonian thought by outlining the political philosophy that informs his Federalist No. 10.

The Federalist Papers consist of eighty-five essays published under the pseudonym “Publius” in New York City during the ratification debate. They were mostly authored by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, while John Jay only contributed a few.13 James Madison’s Federalist No. 10 “ranks as perhaps the most significant contribution to the theory of government ever written by an American.”14 Madison deals with the troublesome topic of factions and the possibility of a tyrannical majority not only imposing its will on a minority but invading the rights of other citizens. He holds the emergence of factions to be inevitable on account of human nature, for “[a]s long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.”15 Furthermore, he deems the diversity in faculties of men “not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests,” by which the emergence of factions might be avoided. Since the causes of faction therefore cannot be removed without depriving citizens of their liberty, only one method of “curing the mischiefs of faction” remains: one has to simply control its effects.16 This, James Madison argues, can be better achieved in a large republic than a small one. He explains:

Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.17

He then goes on to say:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.18

The main differences between a democracy and a republic in Madison’s view are “first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.”19 Moreover, in a larger republic there will be a greater number of fit characters to elect as government officials, and the possibilities of intrigues and corruption are likely do decrease.20 The more the merrier is the name of the game, so to speak. While this statement appears to stand in stark contrast to what most political philosophers from Aristotle to Montesquieu (and one may add: Thomas Jefferson) had insisted – namely, that self-government might work in small city states but was impractical in large countries21 – it happens to echo the words of Scottish philosopher David Hume. Not only had he anticipated Madison in seeing factions springing from human nature, but he had also proposed a similar solution. Roy Branson notes that “at points where they differed from contemporaries Madison and the Scotsmen agreed with each other.”22

Even the more conservative figures among the Founding Fathers (as well as European conservatives such as Edmund Burke, the “father of conservatism”) viewed the world through the progressive lens of the Enlightenment.

In Federalist No. 51 James Madison sketches the political system of the United States under the Constitution, dwells on checks and balances and advocates for a strict separation of powers.23 In order to ensure that laws were not enacted and enforced by a small group of individuals alone, each branch would have the authority to impact the legislation procedure. Madison, being yet the realist we have encountered examining Federalist No. 10, states that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.”24 Since men are not angels (no government would be necessary if they were), one has to “first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”25 Madison also reiterates the main point he had made in Federalist No. 10, asserting that

[w]hilst all authority in it [in the federal republic of the United States] will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. … In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.26

Let us now turn to one of the most important figures of the Scottish Enlightenment: David Hume. In his essay on an “Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth” he writes:

We observe … the falsehood of the common opinion that no large state … could ever be modeled into a [republic] commonwealth, but that such a form of government can only take place in a city or small territory. The contrary seems probable. Though it is more difficult to form a republican government in an extensive country than in a city, there is more facility, when once it is formed, of preserving it steady and uniform, without tumult and faction. … Democracies are turbulent. For however the people may be divided or separated into small parties, their near habitation in a city will always make the force of popular tides and currents very sensible. … In a large government … the parts are so distant and remote, that it is very difficult, either by intrigue, prejudice, or passion, to hurry them into any measures against the public interest.”27

The striking similarities between Hume and Madison are more than obvious from this quote. Roy Branson has also stressed parallels between Madison and Adam Ferguson, John Millar as well as Adam Smith. He finds these similarities with the Scotsmen to be “dramatized by the way the positions they held in common differed from those of Madison’s life-long friend from the Revolutionary era, Thomas Jefferson.”28 But perhaps this Scottish-Enlightenment influence comes as less of a surprise when we bear in mind that when Madison attended Princeton University, its President John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister, had recently come over from Scotland. He would become the only active clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence. In spite of his being a conservative evangelical, he nonetheless put Hume, Smith, and Ferguson on his reading lists.29 Douglass Adair asserts that “The syllabus of Witherspoon’s lectures …, which has been preserved with the list of recommended readings, explains the conversion of the young Virginian to the philosophy of the Enlightenment.”30 The fact that Witherspoon was an evangelical clergyman and probably certain that we are all “sinners in the hands of an angry God” (Jonathan Edwards), sheds some light on the question of why Madison’s Federalist Papers are informed by a combination of European-Enlightenment ideas and a rather bleak perspective on human nature.31


1 Barbara Jordan; cited from Hillary Clinton, Twitter Post, October 4, 2019, 7:27.

2 Douglass Adair, “James Madison,” in Fame and the Founding Fathers, ed. Trevor Colbourn (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1974), 124.

3 Perhaps his life-long friend Thomas Jefferson would have been more understanding of such a radical attitude. In a letter to Madison he wrote that every constitution and every law were to expire at the end of nineteen years. “If it be enforced longer,” Jefferson stated, “it is an act of force and not of right.” Jefferson to Madison, September 6, 1789, Papers 15, 396; cited from Roy Branson, “James Madison and the Scottish Enlightenment,” Journal of the History of Ideas 40, no. 2 (1979), 238.

4 Cf. Paul S. Boyer, American History: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 26-7.

5 Jeremy D. Bailey, James Madison and Constitutional Imperfection (Cambridge University Press: New York, 2015), 2. Note, however, that Bailey argues that the second dichotomy was “flawed or at least under-examined” (ibid., 4) and that the importance of stability for Madison had long been overestimated in the light of the Federalist Papers (ibid., 11).

6 Walter F. Murphy, Constitutional Democracy: Creating and Maintaining a Just Political Order (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2009), 9.

7 Thomas Jefferson is not mentioned in the article while the two examples of neo-Roman writers given happen to be Niccolò Machiavelli and James Madison: Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v.Civic republicanism,” accessed October 6, 2019.

8 While historians such as Charles A. Beard and Vernon L. Parrington had downplayed the role of ideas in the events that led to the creation of the American republic, Louis Hartz emphasized the importance of Lockean liberalism. Emerging in the 1960s, two new schools put emphasis on the primacy of ideas as opposed to mere self-interest: the “St. Lois School”, led by J. G. A. Pocock, and the “Cambridge School”, which was led by Bailyn and Wood. Bailyn’s book won the 1968 Pulitzer Prize: Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967); Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1969). The defining features of this particularly American republicanism are a vilification of corruption and a strong emphasis on civic virtue. Deeply suspicious of big government (esp. Thomas Jefferson) and commerce (Jefferson and John Adams), it idealizes the yeoman farmer as the basis of a healthy society. In Query XIX in Notes on the State of Virginia, 175, Jefferson wrote: “Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts He has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. […] The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor.” And John Adams asserted that the spirit of commerce was indeed “incompatible with that purity of Heart, and Greatness of soul which is necessary for a happy Republic.” John Adams; cited from Paul A. Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution, vol. 2 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), 23.

9 See especially Jeremy D. Bailey, James Madison and Constitutional Imperfection (Cambridge University Press: New York, 2015). But even as early as 1954, long before Bailyn and Wood appeared on the scene, Neal Riemer had stated the “frequently distorted picture of his [Madison’s] political philosophy as a whole” was “not attributable to a total neglect but rather to a myopic preoccupation with certain aspects of his thought at the expense of his dominant republican ideology.” Neal Riemer, “The Republicanism of James Madison,” Political Science Quarterly 69, no. 1 (1954), 45.

10See Interregnum, episode 43, “Republic vs. Democracy.”

11 William L. Pierce; cited from John B. Leonard, The New Prometheans (London: Arktos, 2019), 119.

12 See John B. Leonard, The New Prometheans (London: Arktos, 2019).

13 See Paul S. Boyer, American History: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 28.

14 Ralph L. Ketcham, “Notes on James Madison’s Sources for the Tenth Federalist Paper,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 1, no. 1 (1957), 20; cf. David F. Epstein, The Political Theory of the Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 59.

15 James Madison. Federalist No. 10.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid. My personal definition of a republic deviates somewhat from Madison’s, since I hold democracies to be republics as well. “Mixed government” is, in my view, not a sine qua non for a republic; the absence of a king or dictator is. Any form of government which excludes one-man rule is thus inherently republican. John Adams seems to have favored a similar definition when he stated that a republic was a “government whose sovereignty is vested in more than one person.” Adams to Roger Sherman, July 17, 1789, Works VI, 437, cited from William R. Everdell, “From State to Free-State: The Meaning of the Word Republic from Jean Bodin to John Adams,” Accessed October 8, 2019.

20 Cf. ibid.

21 Cf. Ralph L. Ketcham, “Notes on James Madison’s Sources for the Tenth Federalist Paper,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 1, no. 1 (1957), 25.

22 Roy Branson, “James Madison and the Scottish Enlightenment,” Journal of the History of Ideas 40, no. 2 (1979), 235.

23 This strong emphasis on a separation of powers has, of course, been linked to the French judge and political philosopher Montesquieu. Ketcham even speculates that Montesquieu was one of the thinkers who most profoundly influenced the Founding Fathers, second only to John Locke: Ralph L. Ketcham, “Notes on James Madison’s Sources for the Tenth Federalist Paper,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 1, no. 1 (1957), 21. However, also Ketcham acknowledges that there are many possible sources on the idea of separation of powers: ibid., 23, f.n. 9; see also Marshall D. Lloyd, “Polybius and the Founding Fathers: The Separation of Powers,”, accessed October 8, 2019, Donald S. Lutz has demonstrated that, in terms of referencing, Montesquieu ranks above all other European writers, including John Locke. However, referencing does not imply agreement, but sometimes even quite the contrary: Donald S. Lutz, “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought,” American Political Science Review 78 (1984), 189-90; Colleen A. Sheehan, “Madison and the French Enlightenment: The Authority of Public Opinion,” The William and Mary Quarterly 59, 4 (2002), 925, f.n. 3.

24 James Madison. Federalist No. 51.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 David Hume, “Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth,” Essays, Literary, Moral, and Political (London, 1870), 307-8; cited from Ralph L. Ketcham, “Notes on James Madison’s Sources for the Tenth Federalist Paper,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 1, no. 1 (1957), 24.

28 Roy Branson, “James Madison and the Scottish Enlightenment,” Journal of the History of Ideas 40, no. 2 (1979), 238. For a different opinion see Colleen A. Sheehan, The Mind of James Madison: The Legacy of Classical Republicanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). He examines Madison’s 1791 “Notes on Government” and finds that Madison happened to have been more of a civic republican than proposed in this essay. According to Sheehan, Madison was dissatisfied with the Scottish school of thought and its emphasis on “institutional arrangements and economic self interest” while neglecting ethos and paidea. Ibid., 17; Alissa M. Ardito, review of The Mind of James Madison: The Legacy of Classical Republicanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), by Colleen A. Sheehan, Perspectives on Politics 14, no. 1 (2016), 222; see also Colleen A. Sheehan, “Public Opinion and the Formation of Civic Character in Madison’s Republican Theory,” The Review of Politics 67, no. 1 (2005), 44-8. In contrast to Sheehan, John R. Bauer asserts that the Madisonian republic did not provide for civic education, and “the promotion of virtue was never listed by Madison as one of the objects of government,” since he would have deemed this an interference in the “private spheres of the individual”. John R. Bauer, “James Madison and the Revision of Republicanism in Post-Revolutionary America,” PhD diss., (Duke University, 1984), 168.

29 Roy Branson, “James Madison and the Scottish Enlightenment,” Journal of the History of Ideas 40, no. 2 (1979), 236.

30 Douglass Adair, “James Madison,” in Fame and the Founding Fathers, ed. Trevor Colbourn (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1974), 127.

31 John R. Bauer concludes in his 1984 dissertation that “Madison’s attempt to ground republicanism upon a more ‘realistic’ view of human nature and society, sacrificed certain positive values inherent in the republican tradition.” John R. Bauer, “James Madison and the Revision of Republicanism in Post-Revolutionary America,” PhD diss., (Duke University, 1984), 180.

]]> 3
Sir Roger Scruton: In Memoriam Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:39:12 +0000 This week (12 January 2020) the Scruton family announced the death of the British traditionalist conservative philosopher Sir Roger Scruton, at the age of seventy-five. Recent days have seen far more eloquent and wide-ranging tributes than I could offer; still, given the perceptible ‘hidden hand’ of Scruton’s influence on my own life and work, I nevertheless feel obliged to submit this small reflection and survey of his work and legacy to the public.

What struck me on both occasions of meeting Sir Roger Scruton was what I hazard to call the immanence of the living man in his written work.

I had the opportunity to meet and talk with Sir Roger twice in my young life – once for the purpose of an interview, and again briefly at an event at which Sir Roger was speaking. What struck me on both occasions was what I hazard to call the immanence of the living man in his written work. A reader of Scruton’s books, whether sympathetic or hostile, cannot avoid recognizing the well-crafted nature of his prose, his desire to form language into something beautiful, indeed, something worth reading. The man Scruton spoke among friends and acquaintances as he wrote – with well-crafted and often deeply profound thoughts, making him a man worth hearing. In certain contexts (such as that of the interview mentioned above), he took on the role of a teacher quite naturally, never imposing his words upon those of us who asked for his input with arrogance, but gently and confidently participating in the paradosis of the things which to him seemed worth holding on to. Scruton is perhaps an image of several distinctly and traditionally English qualities, but perhaps also traditional English qualities which will see few takers in the years following his death.

Douglas Murray’s recent tribute1 to Sir Roger described him as ‘a man bigger than the age’. Certainly, Scruton was a man consistently at odds with the age. The publication of The Meaning of Conservatism (1980, revised 1984 and 2001) is surely a milestone in right-wing political thought; a thorough repudiation of liberalism and socialism, and implicitly critical of the neoliberal tendencies of Thatcherism that were overseeing the revival of the British Conservative Party’s popularity at the time, The Meaning of Conservatism both firmly grounded the ‘traditionalist’ wing of English Toryism outside of liberalism, and grounded Scruton in his long-standing status as an intellectual pariah among the Anglophone academic establishment. In the 1990s, Scruton regularly defended and expounded the aesthetic meaning behind traditional English pastimes. A smoker, fox-hunter and powerful critic of brutalist and modernist architecture, Scruton’s positions increasingly conflicted with the final socio-cultural deconstruction of a nation soon to be ushered in under the aegis of Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ (which perhaps now could be described as the epitome of left-wing cultural ‘boomerism’). These conflicts even saw Scruton relocate to the United States briefly, from 2004 to 2009.

Perhaps one of Scruton’s greatest cultural achievements was as part of the underground academic world behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe. Throughout the 1980s Scruton visited Czechoslovakia to run secret university courses and smuggle books banned by the communist regime into the country, even being arrested in 1985 before fleeing across the border into Austria. His work supporting the dissidents of Eastern Europe was recognized by the Czech government with a Medal of Merit in 1998, and by the Polish in 2019. The events of this part of his life were captured by Scruton artistically in the novel Notes from Underground (2014), and he remained critical of both communism and the social theorists who drank from its ideological draught (vid. Thinkers of the New Left, 1985; republished as Fools, Frauds and Firebrands, 2015).

As a writer, Scruton refused to specialize, and his works cover innumerable topics from political philosophy and Kantian ethics to architecture and music, not to mention his accomplished status as a novelist and opera composer. In contemporary philosophy, Scruton exerted his influence despite his status as something of a reactionary. Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey (1994) remains a popular textbook, used somewhat begrudgingly but with a full recognition of its merits in English universities by academics with political stances far from his own. Sexual Desire (1986), despite its conservative ethical position and hostility to most contemporary ideological talking-points (re female equality, deviant sexuality &c.) has been recognized by liberal scholars as one of the first systematic engagements with modern philosophical issues of sexuality and love. As a political philosopher, I would humbly submit that Scruton’s greatest contributions include his development of the term ‘oikophobia’ – a term lifted from the English Romantic poet Robert Southey, but explicated by Scruton as a kind of childish (and politically neurotic) repudiation of one’s homeland and the way of life associated with it – and his interpretation and application of the French sociologist Émile Durkheim. Like Durkheim, Scruton’s analyses of nation-states were holistic in nature, seeing cultural traditions not as eccentricities to be freely adopted and discarded, but as lived realities which emerged from, were shaped by, and ultimately represent the cultural-historical reality of cultures and peoples. Scruton’s greatest advancement in Durkheim’s social theory for our age, however, was his recognition (in The Soul of the World, 2014) that attempts to describe the traditions and cultural inheritances of nations in a purely historico-materialist and Darwinian way was insufficient. Evolution, he teaches us, cannot account for the spiritual experience of man in various aspects of his real life: be that family life, religious life, or wider political life. Indeed, it was the left’s inability to depart from this absolutizing materialism that was the source of much of their hostility to Scruton and, as he himself realized, their inability to countenance the meaning of tradition.

It seems to me that Scruton has achieved at least some participation in that beautiful, triumphant death that is the highest calling of the European spiritual and artistic destiny.

Throughout his life, Scruton frequently characterized his leftist opponents as mistaken, and spoke of them with great pity. His later work tended to manifest in attempts at explaining the ‘conservative attitude’ which he had developed to curious liberals and socialists. Scruton’s last non-fiction book, Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition (2017), was explicitly written with liberal readers in mind; but it was How to Be a Conservative (2014) which received greater popular acclaim. This last work included a particularly effective analysis of the truths and errors in liberalism and socialism – praising the latter’s recognition of political reality of human communities and the former’s primacy of human free will in the achievement of individual destiny, but criticizing the materialism and tendency towards inhumanity in socialism, as well as the anomie and rootless individualism that often accompanies liberalism. Nevertheless, despite his benevolence and characteristic gentleness in the presentation of his political and ethical philosophy, this did not prevent the modern left from attacking him with all the hallmarks of its contemporary mendacious schizophrenia. His 2019 interview in the British left-leaning magazine, The New Statesman (a publication for which he had once been a wine critic), was published as a combination of misrepresentation of views and outright lies, and saw his reputation perhaps irreparably damaged, leading as well as to his dismissal from a UK Government commission on architecture to which he had been appointed. Whilst he was later reinstated and offered an apology, and the magazine admitted its wrongdoing (only after much pressure had been put upon it and much evidence acquired by Douglas Murray in Scruton’s favour), as in many such cases, one can never quite recover from such damage, and it remains the case that the original libellous article received much more attention than the ensuing apology. If there is one thing that Scruton’s experience can teach the rest of us, it is that no amount of sympathy with one’s opponents or good-natured conduct, at least when one’s opponents are so psychologically shallow as to desire nothing less one’s complete destruction, will spare the curious traditionalist from the onslaught of a definitively hostile media. It is fitting that his final two works of fiction – The Disappeared (2015) and Souls in the Twilight (2018) – should describe the plight of those suffering from the effects of decades of cultural leftism. The former is a highly topical story of a schoolgirl victim of an immigrant grooming-gang, the latter a collection of tender short-stories detailing the lives of pitiable young people seeking (in characteristically naïve fashion) to find a purpose in the postmodern world.

Nevertheless, in his final months, Scruton offered us a vision of his death as well-suited to his life as one could have hoped: a beautiful one. Primarily an aestheticist by training, Scruton frequently defended beauty as a transcendent category and as the goal of all art (vid. Why Beauty Matters, 2009, BBC documentary). Having forgiven his enemies, his final diary2 lays aside any anxiety over his reputation and focuses on those to whom he owes thanks: ‘Coming close to death you begin to know what life means, and what it means is gratitude.’

It is impossible to distil the life and achievements of this intellectual into a fitting eulogy, but let it suffice to say that it seems to me that Scruton has achieved at least some participation in that beautiful, triumphant death that is the highest calling of the European spiritual and artistic destiny. Even at the hour of his death, his reflection on the beauty of the world, his laying aside of grudges and embracing of family and thanksgiving reminds us of a certain peace that many of us dream of achieving in death, but which the fear of death too often denies to many. His relatively brief period of suffering suggests that little expiation was required by Providence for the remission of any sins, or ‘gentle regrets’, as he may have called them. Yet ultimately Scruton did not fear his death; he knew it was inevitable and he knew his duty when facing it. In an interview given many years ago, Scruton reflected on the philosophical concept of sub specie aeternitatis – our brief time on this earth, he remarked, ‘is [ours] and [ours] alone.’ Here is a man who, despite the spirit of his times, has made his life his own; though his opponents still exist now, even at his death rabidly chomping at the bit to announce all kinds of fake crimes over his coffin (racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and so on), they will not participate in the legacy of Scruton. For those of us who remain, we can revisit Sir Roger’s library of over fifty published books in order to tap into the cultural, social, and philosophical wisdom which he distilled throughout his life. This legacy, and the memory of his deeds as well as his words, which in fact were recognized with far greater love and admiration abroad than in his home country, entitle Scruton to his place in eternity.

Memory eternal!


1Douglas Murray, ‘Roger Scruton: A Man Who Seemed Bigger Than the Age’, The Spectator. 12 January 2020. Accessed 16 January 2020.

2Sir Roger Scruton: 1944-2020’, The Spectator. 12 January 2020. Accessed 16 January 2020.

]]> 2
Men of the Sky – Part 3 Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:52:45 +0000 God on the Cross

I have never wanted to search for Christ. I have no backwards-looking, conservative care for Christianity as a heritage or religion; I have no care or attachment to the Church or its traditions from my childhood; I have no aesthetic care for the themes, style or art of Christianity; I have no care for the community or identity of Christianity; and I have no care for the teachings of Christ or the morality of the Church.

On the contrary, I have always felt – and still feel – a strong repulsion for all of this, against the whole pathos and ethos of Christianity. Felt that I do not want any of this in my body. Felt within my body the call for a pure, Earthly force to be nurtured and affirmed, a creative, bodily, pagan force of these fallen times of ours – a force which one day will tear itself apart, by the fact that this force, this artistic expression, always wants to be greater and more powerful, even if it must pay for this with its own destruction. Yes, it is even a passionate affirmation of this destruction in itself, as an artwork of Death.

I of course do not mean this force to be Earthly in the sense of personal passions or lust for glory, of affirming my own existence in itself, of merely repeating the cycle of Nature or of trying to live on in the false immortality of my people. To be honest – in comparison with this force I speak of – I could not care less if I, and all these things of the Earth that are my own, simply disappeared tomorrow, leaving no trace.

But I have also always felt the Sky within me, wanting to return home, to reunite with the Sky above. And so, no matter how far I have striven away from Christianity in my spiritual and artistic search, I have never been able to escape Christ himself. Every movement away from Him only resulted in Him returning in even greater purity and strength, for He truly is the Sky itself – the Sky which has tread down.

There is nothing which can match the clarity, infinitude, eternity and tranquility of Christ – the absolute God himself, made into the flesh of a simple man. And there is no sacrifice or glory which can ever match the sacrifice of God – Eternity itself choosing to bleed upon the cross, for the sake of those who were so far below. And there is no victory which can ever match the resurrection of Christ, as he both died and defeated Death itself, carrying with him the whole world and mankind back towards eternal Life.

There is no victory which can ever match the resurrection of Christ, as he both died and defeated Death itself, carrying with him the whole world and mankind back towards eternal Life.

The greatness of it all is simply too overwhelming. And when one has finally opened one’s heart to Him, there is no turning back; in that moment, one’s whole body is struck away, and from its depths rise an all-engulfing wave of pure, black Sky – purity beyond beauty, beyond all suns and stars. There is nothing to do, but to strike one’s forehead against the ground, not out of submission or self-denial, but in total affirmation of one’s true Life above, which he has brought down to fill this Earthly life of man with Eternity.

But still, I do feel this Earthly force, matching and warring with the Sky. Something which can not be put in the same clear words as the calm logos of the Sky, but which roars with an equally pure, but wordless, howl. A wave of the Body, waiting for a moment to strike itself with full power and passion against the cliffs of the world.

It is not a mere lack of Sky I talk of, not a foul desire for temptations and bodily delight, but a force all its own, which can not be united with the heritage of Christianity. A force which wishes that there were no apostles, no church and no tradition – that Christ was known only through this one fact, that the one and only God has chosen to die as a mere man, because he loved the world, and he has thus brought the world back to him.

And this force wishes that this sentence had first been heard by a violent, healthy people of the Northern steppes – a people riding along the edge of a seemingly never-ending horizon, with no veils between their Earthly struggle and the open Sky above. For imagine knowing nothing of sin, knowing only a free power beyond good and evil, and in this state imagine hearing this Truth! One would come to the conclusion that one too must die – that one must destroy oneself, in an unending conquest of the world, in order to affirm that the world belongs to Him. It would whirl this people of Northern steppes into a holy scourge, striking back against all peoples and all lands. Yes – striking the world herself, engulfing her in the fires of Heaven.

Images of pure destruction, of the end of a cycle, a war free of meek morality or the concept of sin – but still, a war waged in union with the absolute Sky above.

But of course, this is not Christianity. For Christ is not a mere sentence, which a Northern people was given to affirm by their own spirit. He was an actual man, and the starting point of his Tradition – the downwards movement of the Sky – was that which he showed and carried on to his apostles. The church is the act of Christ – the only thing which carries on his downward movement – and without affirming the Church, it is very doubtful if one affirms any Tradition at all.

This Earthly force of which I am speak seems to put me in the same position as any other pagan. It seems to force me to choose either an “idea” of Christ which has no actual, living presence of the Sky (in the same way that the neo-pagan worships the empty forms of his dead gods, mixed with his own projections) or to choose a position of only waiting, of “riding the tiger” in the hopes that someone else will come in the future, one who can unite this Earthly force with the Sky above.

In my previous essays, I have clearly chosen the second option, projecting the qualities of Christ upon some Sky Father assumed to stand at the beginning of the Aryan tradition, and awaiting his return at the end of the cycle. But this is of course only emptiness – repeating already in my youth the sad failure of the old Evola. For like him I am turning my back unto Christ, but with no possibility whatsoever to replace the downwards movement of God, and so I am dooming myself to merely wither away as an old man, waiting for someone else to come and rekindle the flame of Tradition.

But yet, I feel this power I speak of to be True, equally True as the purity of Christ. Waging a war against all that he has left behind him, yet at the same time wanting to join Him, now in a downward crash of pure destruction and violence. A wish for a pure Death matching the pure Life of Christ – a wish for a fully developed force of the Earth, to match the eternal lordship of the Sky.

As of now, I do not know the answer to this problem. These two principles only stray further and further away from each other, in an oscillation which only grows more violent as it stretches towards two infinities at once. But I do hope that they are destined to reach each other – I hope that if someone is able to endure and fulfill the torsion of them both, the two will coincide in one single, steady line, piercing both the Earth and the Sky to its fullest.

I have only come to admit what I have always felt: that transcendence cannot be inherited. That the Sky, like the realm of art, must be recreated in every age.

But of course, this hope might only be the desperate projection of a dream, which could prove both impossible and false. Maybe this earthly, bodily force I speak of is just a fetish or delusion of my own, which only blocks my understanding of a God who has already shown himself. Maybe I am not really interested in Tradition at all, but only in a powerful, beautiful and frightening art of this world. But I cannot help but feel that I am talking of something true and important, and that this deepest dream of mine – of a unity between these two forces – is a true calling.

Farewell to Tradition

I write this last section some time after the completion of the essay above. For this essay, and my spiritual search as a whole, has been nothing but a confused waddling back and forth, with no real conclusion, and it will remain worthless if it does not amount to any true leap of faith. I have been forced to return to the final words of this essay, and to the depths of my own soul, again and again, in an attempt to squeeze out some drop of actual spirit. And I find it in a sentence which almost slipped out of me, which I did not really want to admit, but which nevertheless is the key to what I have written so far: “Maybe I am not really interested in Tradition at all”. Or, to phrase it in line with what I have come to realize: maybe I do not believe in Tradition at all.

By this negation of Tradition, I do not at all deny what I have written about the Sky and God – for these have been the most sincere and true words I have ever uttered; rather I have only come to admit what I have always felt: that this spirit and transcendence cannot be inherited or carried on. That the Sky, like the realm of art, must be recreated in every age, and that it can only be known by men who have discovered it within themselves, and who will strike the world into the image of what they have seen and loved.

If there has been any leitmotif of my writings, any overarching dream and hope, it has been that of men who only act out of what they have seen within themselves – men who seek not to be given the Sky from outside, but to unearth it within themselves. The Aryan poetry of heroes; the overman of Nietzsche; the personal leap of faith of Kierkegaard; the Futurist love of violent action and speed; the self-sufficient will of Stirner; Fascism, in its purest form of creative destruction and will to a new Order; and of course, Christ without the baggage of Christianity – while these are many contradictory influences of mine, what binds them all together is the dream of knowing within oneself a spirit as self-sufficient as the Sky above, and of carrying it out in an all-engulfing will to power, as destructive as it is creative.

Tradition has only been an ill-fitting justification for what I have wanted to say – for I have not looked back at the heroes and teachings of old in the hope that the spirit and Truth they lived could be transferred to our age, but rather in the will to find and create in our own age a spirit which is not a mere inheritor, but a true successor. I have sought an act and spirit, which burns down every empty and dead residue of the old days, yet within itself carries the same Sky which our ancestors knew.

I have, in all honesty, only felt a disgust for tradition in reality – for the clinging to old and lifeless forms in the hope of tasting some small, muddy drop of Sky, passed down from mouth to mouth for thousands of murky years. No, I have always felt that only the Sky itself is enough, rediscovered fresh and youthful within every new generation, and that it is far more noble to fail in the search for this Sky within oneself and perish like a dog in that attempt, than to glimpse the sky merely through the murky forest of dead and withered ancestors.

Yes, Tradition is in essence something feminine, something suited to the great mass of the people, who cannot know the Sky for themselves. For Tradition, like the process of childbirth, is a process of receiving, nurturing and carrying on the life-force of great men, only repeating their spirit through the cycle of Nature, without reaching any true spirit oneself. But the men who are at the fountainhead of Tradition are the men who were able to know the Sky within themselves – who knew how to both destroy and create, in order to once again repeat the Sky here on Earth, to fill the womb of Nature with true Life and Eternity.

This unfortunate clinging to Tradition has forced me into an unwanted dialogue with Christianity – an attempt to reconcile myself with a teaching and heritage to which I have never felt a true calling – only because Christianity is indeed the single living Tradition. But I now know that this sort of Tradition is not something which I really desire.

I wrote in the essay above that Evola failed because he denied the one still living Tradition; but in reality, the true reason that I have been drawn to and appreciated Evola so much – much more than any other Traditionalist – is precisely because he really does not care so much about being part of any Tradition, but rather aims to rediscover in his own time the Truth which was at the fountainhead of the Traditions of old. If anything, he failed to revive this Truth because he relied to much on these Traditions, which were already dead – because he could not fully embrace the forces of his time, and turn them into a new manifestation of the Sky above.

But what about the downward movement of God that I talked of — that element still missing in the work of Evola? I still know this salvation to be both the condition and completion of any striving towards the Sky – I just do not think that this downwards movement can be fully carried on through Tradition.

I believe that this movement of God is only available to those few men who have by themselves seen the Sky within themselves, and that He in these extraordinary cases makes himself truly known, as a lightning bolt from the clear sky, igniting the much fainter fire which later generations venerate as Tradition. And thus I do not believe this salvation to be given beforehand, nor do I believe that it is a matter of faith; rather, it appears as a living fact whenever a man of great spirit manages to reach out and receive it.

Maybe this rejection of Tradition puts me at the final stage of postmodernism and degeneration – for maybe I have not only rejected the Traditions of old but also inverted them, putting in the place of the true Sky above and its law the chaos of an imagined Sky within man himself.

I have sought an act and spirit, which burns down every empty and dead residue of the old days, yet within itself carries the same Sky which our ancestors knew.

But maybe I have actually unearthed some faint shard of the original spirit and Sky at the beginning of all Traditions – for maybe I have remembered an age of golden men, who lived as a part of the Sky itself, and maybe I have seen their return at the coming end of this age and its withered Traditions.

This ambiguity is in itself enough to arouse my interest, for it is really fitting to the end of an age, balancing both an absolute fall and an absolute redemption, on an edge as sharp and dangerous as the mythical twilight of the gods and end of the world-cycle, where the lowest abyss and highest peak paradoxically meet at a single point. But of course, I do also believe this to be the true path, uniting in one movement the yearning for the pure Sky above with the creative destruction of Earthly power below.

Finally, I have also realised why I feel such a disgust against all forms of neopaganism – for they are just like me, except that they do not do what I deem necessary. They are, like me, not interested in being a part of an actual living Tradition (otherwise they would be Christians), but rather they seek a new spirit of our time, to reignite the light of a lost Golden Age through the struggle of Tomorrow.

But they do not fully affirm this rejection of Tradition and throw themselves against the horizon of Tomorrow, where the pure Sky meet the absolute darkness and death of Earth. They do not affirm the destruction of everything old, as a rebirth of that which was at the beginning of it all. Rather, they choose to pretend that they are a part of some old Tradition that is long since dead. They choose to submit themselves to gods they know do not exist, they choose to worship the womb of the people and Nature, and they perform empty rites that are a mockery of everything divine. They do not have what it takes to make the leap towards a new Age, and they can thus never fulfill our common dream – a dream which they are not even aware of having. For that I despise them.

But I would love to see them as brothers – I would love it if I could create something, which could awaken within them the same pure Sky which I have felt hidden within myself. For in reality, it is among them that the spiritual virility of our age is hidden – in those who have grown tired of Christianity, yet dream and fight for a new Order and a new Age. It is only among men like this that the dream of the Sky and a new Morning could root itself.

I cannot really blame them for clinging to these dead Traditions as a substitute for their true spiritual calling, so long as there are no men who can create a new expression of this dream, reaching forward to the innermost depths of their hearts. My despite for them is really quite childish, and should rather be transformed into a criticism of my own attempts to show or act upon the Sky I wish to be seen.

Yes, it is on these acts and creations of my own that the path I have chosen relies: either they fail, and I perish as a delusional, postmodern dog, or else these things do win the favour of God, and, bestowed by His grace, show the world some small shard of that Sky which is at the fountainhead of it all. Save as something like that happens, my work is indeed only empty words and a vain play on artistic expressions. But this uncertainty and this gamble is precisely what I want and deem necessary for our Age, even if I most certainly have doomed myself to perishing into nothing – to never knowing or living the Sky.

But this dream of mine, of a new brotherhood of European men, riding along the edge of the horizon, binding together the calm heavens above with the sound of thundering hooves below, reaching the deepest depths of Time through the dawn of Tomorrow, repeating the eternal lordship of the Sky through the conquest of every people and the very woman known as Nature herself – this dream is far too great for me to ignore. Yes, the dream of such men of the Sky once again striking the face of the Earth is truly worth sacrificing everything for.

]]> 4
Men of the Sky – Part 2 Thu, 09 Jan 2020 14:22:34 +0000 The Sky Moving Down Towards Man

The only way man can realize the divine within himself – the only way his inner yearning and upwards struggle can be completed – is if the Divine itself has chosen to tread down, and to accept man’s efforts. For man can never reach the end of the Sky, nor can he fit within himself the infinite vastness of the Sky above. Man is of the Sky, but he is not the Sky itself – a truth so simple that it should not need even to be said, but which nevertheless is ignored by so many who seek Tradition.

Man has within himself a memory of his origin – a knowledge of the divine and a yearning to return home. And with this inner truth, man might be able to create by himself art, glorious acts, metaphysics, and even a sort of heightened, liberated spirituality, in which he is aware of the transcendent Eternity within himself, and tries to live by it. But none of these things are God himself. They are all too human, and can never amount to the infinite Sky above – never reach the true source and goal of Tradition.

Man is of the Sky, but he is not the Sky itself – a truth which should not need even to be said, but which nevertheless remains ignored by so many who seek Tradition.

Man can and must strive upwards, and all healthy cultures have had within them this struggle for the Sky. But if this movement is not answered by a living, downwards movement of God himself, everything is doomed to fall short sooner or later – to crash down into the damp womb of the Earth. The downwards movement of God is the main truth of Tradition, and man cannot create or recreate this movement from below. Man can only pass down what God has given him, and if this chain is broken, there is no Tradition left.

That many of a Traditional calling – men like Julius Evola – see this treading down as a mere myth or a sign of weakness in men who cannot reach the divine within themselves by themselves, is what dooms them to never succeed in reviving true Tradition.

For theirs is merely an over-belief in Man’s own spirit, a silly attempt to assert oneself against God, and it can only result in emptiness – in defeat, in insufficient effort, in having nothing left but the patient endurance our fallen times. To ‘ride the tiger’ comes down in the end to waiting – waiting for an actual God to tread down and break that falling cycle which no man can escape by himself. But how can such a waiting ever be justified, when we already know of a God who has tread down?

God as Peace

God must be peace. Not peace in the feminine sense – not the earthly peace of fat, undisturbed childbirth, in which woman can live in harmony with Nature thanks to the sacrifices made by her man at the front. And it is absolutely not identical to any sort of pacifism – wanting the peace of woman, without sacrificing what is necessary to uphold it.

It is a peace of Man himself, the peace of the absolute. It is awareness of the simple fact that nothing can ever strike the Sky, never disturb or harm that which is eternally above. Man must struggle, for man must both overcome himself and destroy those who threaten what is his own – but is it not simply silly to think that God himself would need such struggle? He who is the Absolute, towards which all overcoming can only aim; He whom nothing could ever threaten.

To deny that God is peace would only be to project the conditions of our own lower existence upon his highest Being, and as such would be the opposite of true Tradition, which is the movement of God and man in unity, making higher that which was previously lower.

Yes, if one has never felt this unmovable peace within oneself, then one has never known true spirit, true Sky. War, struggle and heroic acts are only truly divine if they are waged in the affirmation of Eternity above. The warrior can not be a simple creature of rage or power, but must carry within himself, unwavering through the most violent of battles, the calmest Sky of heavenly peace.

Just as the greatest, mightiest and most frightening storms have an eye of clear, undisturbed sky, so does the towering thunder of the greatest warriors merely flow around their true centre of calm and peaceful Sky.

But far too often men of the Right make war itself into a fetish – thinking of the violent act and its self-transcendence not as an manifestation of the divine, but as the divine in itself. I believe this is especially common among Norse neo-pagans, drawn as they are to a mythology of gods who struggle and die. But the fact that the Aesir have their own war to fight is not a sign of a more virile spirit, but of an incomplete spirit.

It is a spirit which can not reach beyond the Earthly struggle of man, but which only projects the struggle of man upon the Sky – a spirit which has forgotten, or which never knew, the true peace of the Absolute, and as such can only imagine the Skies as a place of a greater struggle and a greater cycle. This spirituality cannot unite Earthly struggle with the peace of Eternity above, but to the question of what human struggle is for, what it rests upon, only answers – like the Indian lady with her world-turtle – that there is an even greater struggle below.

But in Christ, we truly see the peace of the Sky above. The untouchable peace, which yet chose to tread down and embrace all agonies of the world below. It is absurd to think that one could ridicule God because he chose to walk calmly towards his own cross. Of course God could have put any kingdom on the Earth under the rule of his son, but Christ was no earthly ruler; he was the Sky itself. There was nothing on Earth which was not already under his heavenly seat, nothing which could add to his glory – would it not be simply ridiculous, if God came to conquer what he already ruled?

The whole point of Christ is that God has chosen to tread down, to be born as a man of flesh and blood, in order to forever breach the abyss between man and the Sky above. He came down to show man the peace of eternal Sky, so that man’s Earthly struggle could become divine.

To see oneself as a greater man than Christ – greater than God himself – because one is a man of Earthly struggle praying to gods of struggle, reeks of an insecurity and confusion as to what it means to be a man below the Sky. It is as silly as trying to pierce the Sky by hurling a spear at it – an act which can only be viewed as an ironical affirmation of one’s inferiority to God, rather than as a virile rebellion.

But here lies also one of my greatest problems with Christianity – that it does not consider the greatest man to be he who carries the peace of God within him through the struggle of the Earth, but rather he who leaves the Earth and its concerns behind, in order to emulate Christ in a life of pure peace.

Of course I do not misinterpret this pure, Sky-like peace of monks as some Earthly, feminine ‘pacifism’, nor do I falsely think that Christianity deems this world or its struggle ‘evil’ – for this world is created by God, and as long as man is just and affirms the world as a part of God, the world can never be evil. Christianity of course does have a tendency to sink towards pacifism and fear of the world, but this process is nevertheless a degeneration, and not the original peace of Christ.

What I mean to say is that Christianity sees the Earthly as something lower which one would preferably escape, rather than as an integral part of our spiritual mission. Christianity thinks that the highest man is he who lives above the world he was born into, in a pure relationship with God and his peace, instead of he knowing God’s peace through the struggle of the world he was actually born into.

Christianity knows war to be good when waged for the Church, sexuality to be good when heightened by marriage, work to be good when done in the name of God, and so on. But still, these goods are seen as lesser goods, as a necessary evil or an escape from something filthy, rather than powers with the potential of being truly divine. In the case of sexuality, while marriage abolishes the sinfulness of sexuality, it would according to the Christian be best to never have felt any passion at all: marriage is only an escape for those who are ‘too weak’ to leave the Earthly love behind altogether. And so too is war a necessary evil, rather than an opportunity for transcendent and divine power.

My problem is that Christianity only wants man to be as similar to the Sky as possible – to be as similar to Christ and his peace as possible – rather than seeing man as the Sky lived through the Earth. Of course the path of the monk is viable and noble – sacrificing one’s whole life in order to become as close the Sky as possible, and reminding the world of its inner Truth and Peace – but is it really the highest path?

If one has not for a short moment felt as if one could almost stretch to embrace the whole world and all its death – then one has never felt the Sky.

I believe that the highest man is he who both knows the peace of God within, and the struggle of the world without – for we are not, like Christ, pure Sky made into flesh; we are also truly made of something Earthly, and this is not a duality which should be solved by abandoning one part of it. Rather we should seek to unite them both in God. The struggle of the world must become something truly good, rather than a necessary evil for those who are ‘too weak’ accept the blows of the enemy. For while it is true that no enemy can harm the peace of our innermost Sky, this should not mean that the highest man is he who, for the sake of this Truth, lets the enemy’s sword pierce his body.

I speak of a will to affirm God by affirming struggle – by repeating the Truth of God’s lordship and order, through the conquest of both the world inside oneself, and the world surrounding.

And by conquest, I do not, as the Christian, speak only of spreading the evangelium by sword and book; I speak also of the pure expansion of power itself. I speak, as the Romans understood, of the holiness of Empire and the glory of conquering other peoples and lands – I speak of not seeing Earthly struggle as a necessary evil which exists in spite of the Sky, but as a way to affirm the eternal lordship of Peace above, by becoming a lord over the Earth here below.

God as Love

If one has truly seen the depth and purity of the Sky above, then one must understand that nothing on Earth can attain its heights. One must understand that God – as the absolute source of Life, as the all-permeating Sky and as the complete Lord above – does not need anything below himself.

But why then has God bothered to breathe his Life into the blood and soil of man? Why would he ever tread down to man, give man Tradition, and call for man’s ascension? What does any of this, what could it ever bring to God? Why would he make something which is not Him, which has its own will, but at the same time tread down – shed his own blood on the cross – so that this other can return to him? The only answer to this absurdity is love.

God has created men and women who are not Him out of love, and out of love He died as a simple man himself, so that his creations can join Him above. God has not come to dissolve man and his Earthly struggle into some womb of feminine harmony, but rather to unite man’s Earthly life with the eternal Life above, so that man’s struggle and sacrifice can be immortalized in the peace of the Sky. God has given man his very own place by his side, out of his love for that which is infinitely below himself.

And if one has not felt this pure love within oneself – if one has not for a brief moment felt as if one could almost stretch to embrace the whole world and all its death – then one has never felt the Sky. For the Sky truly embraces all of existence, and this love is in no way something feminine. On the contrary, woman only loves herself and that which pertains to herself. Woman only loves her children and her kin, for they are what secures her continued existence, her false immortality through the cycle of Nature. Only man can love truly unselfishly, love out of a sense of over-fullness and pure sacrifice – that is, love as the Sky loves.

Feeling scorn for Christ because he loved as the Sky itself – because Christ could love the whole world, and not only love that which pertained to his own continued existence or that of his tribe – only proves that one does not know of anything outside of Nature’s petty cycle. And to refuse to accept this love, because one would deem it humiliating to need the love of God, only shows another deep insecurity in what it means to be a man of flesh and blood. For it is only by the fact that God has chosen to tread down, that we can ever dream of reaching our true selves, as men of the Sky.

But of course, the love of God should not be interpreted as self-denial or as indifference toward one’s own in the face of the enemy. For we are not pure Sky, but we are also men of this Earth and its struggle, and we should not pretend that we are able to embrace the whole world in our love – we are simply too small, and we were created that way.

I believe we were created to know God through the world and its struggle. If man has a family, it is as Father that he reflects the lordship and love of God; and for the King, it is as a ruler over his kingdom. To neglect the defence and prosperity of those given to one’s care out of a ‘love’ for the enemy, would be to betray the love for those which God has set one to rule and lead. One must strike the enemy with heavenly thunder.

But at the same time, one should still be able to recognize the Sky in one’s enemy too – for it is always there somewhere, in the deepest part of all men’s hearts. In the end, everything has descended from the single Sky, and as such, all men are of a brotherhood above. To fail to recognize this, on account of one’s having taken a different side of Nature’s tiny struggle, is to have failed to truly recognized as well the Sky within oneself. And it is also to hide from the true cruelty of all struggle – to fail to embrace the deepest, most tragic beauty of striking one’s enemy to the ground.

God as Salvation

As we have said, any upwards striving movement of man must be met by a downwards movement of the Sky, and there lies no shame at all in recognizing this fact. On the contrary, any illusion of man transcending his Earthly self by pulling himself up by the hair – by his own knowledge or act alone – hides from our sight the fact we are not God. And any attempt to view gods as mere ‘metaphysical powers’ or ‘symbols’ with which man might interact, bargain or even challenge in his own ascension, is to trivialize and profane the absolute nature of the Sky.

All Tradition is salvation, and one cannot fetishize the heroic act or the struggle of Nature at the expense of true divinity – of the unreachable heights of the highest Sky. Any flight of man will reach its limit – his wings will break and he will crash into the bottomless womb of the ocean below – unless God is there to lift him up.

If man has a family, it is as Father that he reflects the lordship and love of God; and for the King, it is as a ruler over his kingdom.

To accept this salvation is no weakness. To die with God and ascend with God is not a fear of crashing down, or a fear of the inevitable death of man and everything man can ever fight for. It is only a realization, that this flight of man is not enough – that no wings of this Earth can ever honour the Sky which man feels within himself. Yes, one could even call it a feeling of dissatisfaction, of knowing one’s true self to be beyond even one’s own struggle.

To accept the salvation is to make the leaps and struggles of man upon this Earth into a flight which actually reaches the Sky – not as a mere manifestation or imitation of the Sky above, but as an actual part of it. It is to become a leap which no filthy gravity of Earth can ever touch.

Every Tradition knows the world to be fallen, but without the salvation of God above, man can only escape this fall by denying it. One cannot reach further than a man like Buddha, annihilating everything within oneself which pertains to this world. But this is an unsatisfactory solution, for it does not redeem the world – it does not make the Earthly into something holy, into a part of the eternal Sky above. In a way, it only deepens the abyss between this world and eternity, reducing the material world into an ‘illusion’ or something equally absurd.

But through salvation, man becomes a part of God’s own body, and the fall has forever been eliminated – Eternity has lived through the flesh of a man, and what thereafter is done by men of the flesh is a part of Eternity itself.

But here is another of my qualms with Christianity – how it identifies this fall with mere sin, how it identifies the Sky with the morally good, and how it thinks that man is only supposed to be as close to the Sky as possible, by avoiding all sin and acting ‘good’.

The fact that man has become a part of God’s very own body should not result in a petty moralism and a constant fear of staining one’s own body. One should rather strive to affirm this fact through an affirmation of the world as His – a desire to honor God’s body by being strong, healthy, beautiful and powerful; to honor His greatness by creating great things; and most importantly, to honor His might by wanting to conquer the world, by putting it under the feet of his Order.

If one strives for this positive affirmation of the Earthly body as a part of God’s own body, one’s life will not be a fear of the devil hiding in every bush, not be a passive and neurotic struggle to avoid sin, but a joyous conquest of everything that is weak, and an active transcendence of everything which is not worthy to touch the Sky.

God as the One

It is obvious that there can be only one Absolute. That there is one first mover, one highest source and one Being behind every single being. But the correct approach to this One is not that of perennialism. For by reducing every Tradition to mere manifestation, interpretation or a particular way toward this same One, we reach no higher state than he who professes a single individual Tradition and a single God to be the only true one; to the contrary, we thereby reach a lower state than that man.

Perennialism imagines God as lower than the true Absolute, because God is also ‘personal’. One conceives of God as being lesser than the unconditioned Truth, because he has appeared in a conditioned form. But God is True precisely because he is both absolute and personal – because he is the One and the manifold – at the same time. The truth of his Tradition stems from the fact, that he let his Absolute self be known to man through his conditioned self, without ever separating the two.

If one separates the personal side of God from his Absolute side, one only destroys Tradition. For one removes the Absolute from one’s Tradition, and God from this world. One is only left with an abstract ‘metaphysical truth’ in Tradition, which is as insufficient as any human creation, and one makes of the divine an unnamable ‘something’, which one can never truly see. Tradition is reduced to a ghostly world of faint symbols and a confusing mish-mash of only partly true gods, and the amount of ‘esotery’ required to make any sense of it all does not indicate one’s depth, but only one’s inadequacy.

For the true Absolute is surely ‘exoteric’ – just as the Sky is always above and visible for any man, unless he himself has chosen to crawl into some dark cavern. The true God does not hide behind some intricate shadow-play of false gods, and he does not need some murky rites or secrets to be known. His words are simply beaming, like the Sun above. If one needs the dusk of hidden rooms to see the light of one’s Absolute, it is not the Sun one perceives, but only the faint flicker of some man-made candle.

The belief that the Sky would not have shown itself to all men is in essence to deny that God needs to tread down – for if mere human capabilities decide who can and cannot know God, divinity is equivalent to the human ability to strive upwards. But as said before, any upwards striving is infinitely insignificant in comparison with the true heights of the Sky, and the grace given by God to the noblest of men is as great as that given to the most menial of men. It is rather a question of reaching the same Sky, by fulfilling the unique role that God has given to each man.

Of course this is not to deny that there is a spiritual hierarchy among men, or that there are different spiritual paths – and it would be even more foolish to deny the material hierarchy among men, merely on account of the fact that God is so far above every man. There are indeed only a few who can truly face the depth of the Sky above and within, and they play a far greater and nobler role than all of their brethren. And it is not strange that such men band together in exclusive brotherhoods – not because the Truth of God is ‘esoteric’, but because the works of these greater men are not for the masses to touch. But to say that only the higher castes can know God, that only they can take place at his side, or even worse, to call them gods themselves, is to make human greatness into a fetish.

The problems which characterize perennialism are also found in today’s neo-paganism, albeit in an even more acute form, as the pagan attempts to worship his ‘symbols’. Not much effort is required to bring the pagan to admit that he does not believe his own gods to be real, save as aspects, manifestations or symbols of the unnameable One above it all. Instead of a God saying ‘I am who I am’, the pagan must wrestle with all kinds of esotericism and creative interpretations in order to explain in what way his gods are not who they are.

The validity of this ‘worship’ rests upon the fact that the One is unnamable by man. No man can reach the Absolute on his own, but can only interpret it, through symbols and ideals. And as such, one should choose the inherited symbols and ideals of one’s people, for they at least fit one’s own mentality, identity and body. But how can such a worship be justified, when the One has named himself? How can one choose to be satisfied with mere ‘symbols’ of the One, when the One himself has tread down, and walked the Earth with human feet?

To call a pagan of today a mere idol-worshipper, role-player or animist (unless he actually is such) is unfair, for he too has an impulse towards the absolute, as did our forefathers in the time before Christ. And this is a true and noble impulse, which can create many great things here on Earth. But the pagans of today should be named fetishists. For they only want to look at the sky through the lake of the people. They only want to see the sky as reflected in what our forebears knew about the divine within themselves. They ignore the true Sky above, ignore that it has tread down in the shape of an actual man, and choose to swim in their own tiny pond.

I could polemicize long, both against paganism in itself, and against the attempts to revive it today from mere memories and ideas within oneself, without the downwards movement of any living god within it. But the main reason I do not deem neopaganism a viable Tradition, is because I can not recognize the Sky within it – because I only see half-measures, attempts of man to ascend without the downward movement of the absolute God above.

Could a paganism of today (purged of all chthonic and animistic elements) provide us with a set of healthy and heroic ideals? Could it revitalize European culture and art, could it give men a reason to fight, could it strengthen our identity, could it give us a metaphysical understanding of the world, and could it provide us with a heightened sense of existence, a will for upward striving? All of this is possible; but even if it succeeded, it would not be Tradition – for none of these things are the Sky itself, and nowhere is the downward movement of an actual, living God to be found in them.

For Tradition is not primarily the attempts of men to reach the Sky; it is the movement of a Sky which has chosen to tread down, to receive and embrace the short flight of man.

]]> 0
Men of the Sky – Part 1 Tue, 07 Jan 2020 13:27:41 +0000 To know the sky to be one’s true home. To see in the sky above the order of unmoved eternity, the infinite halls of Life and the fountainhead of all glory and beauty – and at the same time, to feel this very Sky to be at one’s own core. That might be the purest insight of any worthy Tradition.

To know this short life in the clutches of Mother Earth to be nothing more than an affirmation of Truth above. To not think of this life as created by the Mother’s womb, nor imagine that one will simply return to Her blood and soil after one’s death, but to know the beginning and end of one’s life meeting in the Sky above. That is the basis for any true life and act.

the purpose of Tradition is not to merely cement man’s place in the collective, and strengthen his will to sacrifice himself for the same. Rather, the purpose of the collective is to bring forth men of Tradition

To recognize the Sky as one’s origin, and to do this origin justice by everything in one’s power – that is in essence all there is to Tradition. To know of one’s Father above, to fly his eternal banner calmly into any roaring struggle and drowning bloodshed, and to return home to his peaks, unbeaten through the gates of Death.

Tradition brings health, strength and virtue to the people who professes it, but the mere well-being and existence of the people is not the purpose of Tradition. Rather, the purpose of the people is to follow Tradition, for only through Tradition can it be reborn – breaking through the dark womb of mere Nature, entering the world as children of Eternity itself.

Tradition brings beauty, knowledge, order and civilization – in the highest sense of the word – but the purpose of Tradition is not to heighten the capabilities of man, nor to merely preserve the culture of a people. Rather, the purpose of man’s creations and the people’s culture is to reach towards and reflect the Sky which Tradition has shown them – for only as such can these works become more than a fleeting exercise in vanity; only as such can they take their true place as works of Eternity.

And Tradition brings unity, identity and ideas worth dying for, but the purpose of Tradition is not merely to cement man’s place in the collective, nor to strengthen his will to sacrifice himself for the same. Rather, the purpose of the collective is to bring forth men of Tradition – for the collective is merely our common marble, and its purpose is to be struck and formed by the eternal artist above. Tradition is what truly individuates us – not in the sense of the rootless and atomized individual of modernity, but in the sense of the particular sculpture which was our very own destiny to become. The people’s common marble shines through as an unbreakable bond, but it is in the forms chiseled by Tradition that we find our true selves.

In short, Tradition is not something which is “chosen” for the benefit of something else. Tradition is not an accessory of the people, not the tool of any ideology, not a set of human ideals, nor a preservation of culture or knowledge – Tradition is simply the one and only way towards the Sky, and the only question one should ask when faced with a “choice” of Traditions is whether one is seeing the Sky or not.

And Tradition is not a secondary question, one which must wait until the existential threat towards the European peoples has been averted. For all that which the Right of Tomorrow will accomplish – and we might accomplish many great things – will be in vain if it is not a part of Tradition. It will only be of the dust and shadows of Earth – but does not the great and noble struggle which awaits us deserve to be a reflection of the Sky itself?

Yes, it is in moments as these which lie before us, that the true mettle of man is tested – not only his ability to persevere through hardships, but his ability to turn any struggle upwards. Are we men of the Sky, or are we men who care only for the Earth? Do we but fight to protect the womb of our peoples – to attain a temporary glory in her memory and a false immortality in the secured existence of the next generation – or do we also strike our enemies with the wrath of Heaven itself?

What lies before us is not primarily a struggle for existence, but a test to rediscover our true essence – to rediscover the Sky both above and within.

Man Moving Up Towards the Sky

That man is sky, spirit and being, while woman is earth, matter and becoming is a well-known dichotomy, but one should of course not affirm it categorically. For no man is the Sky itself – no man is God himself – but every man exists in an unbreakable union with his own, limited matter. And woman is not a soulless demon of matter, but has within her too some small shard of Sky, and a role given to her by God. But still, she can only realize this small spirit within herself through the greater spirit of her man, by being subordinated to it, just as the Earth stands below the Sky.

There is also no opposition between spirit and matter – for matter is not a veil or illusion, but is an aspect of the one and only God, and matter is not to be denied, but is to be made eternally good by bringing it before the Sky above. Matter knows its own divinity through spirit, just as woman knows her own relation to God by serving her man.

It is with this in mind that I will speak in a simplified fashion of Man being the Sky, and Woman the Earth below, with a man’s sole purpose being to recognize Him in us and us in Him – not in the belief that we men ourselves are the Sky and the source of Tradition, but in order to know the role we are meant to play in God’s image.

it is in moments as these which lie before us, that the true mettle of man is tested – not only his ability to persevere through hardships, but his ability to turn any struggle upwards.

So what is the Sky? What characterizes Man? If one asks Woman, she will say that man is he who is beneficial to her and to her womb. For Woman is Earth, the great cycle of Nature, and she does not live her life through Eternity, but rather lives it by extending herself through her children, through giving the great cycle another spin. If the cycle stops, she perishes; and left to her own, she will mistake anything which is above the cycle as a possible threat to herself.

Her whole world is solidified, compressed and centralized around her womb – not because she actually is the centre of the universe, but because her hips are so heavy. Because she can’t escape the gravity of her own womb. Woman is arched into her own sphere, her own planet, and when she looks around herself and only sees Sky at all sides, she will mistakenly think that the sky is orbiting her.

She looks up, but she does not see the sky as above herself – she only sees it as further away from the centre of her womb. She believes that the airy Sky is only redeemed by reaching back towards her, by solidifying and touching her with gifts for the sake of childbirth. She will say that man is he who sacrifices himself for her false immortality – she will say that the Sky is lightning and sun.

For Woman wants frightening lightning to strike the face of her Earth, to destroy any who would threaten her swollen womb; to secure the peaceful fatness of her pregnancy. And she wants sun to constantly shine upon her, to give her warmth, to bring nurture to her heavy breasts, and to create within Nature an order of peaceful harmony and eternal childbirth. These two principles are the vassals of her sexual arousal, the guardians of her false immortality through the cycle of Nature.

But Man should never let Woman define him. For she is but Earth, while he is the infinite Sky above. She cannot know his true depth, and he should not forget himself for the sake of her. If he reduces himself to mere lightning and sun, he too will be nothing more than a solid shell, a thin atmosphere orbiting around the world of Woman.

Man must not believe that Woman gives him life or immortality, but must rather know that he within himself carries the true source of Life and Immortality – namely the Sky. He must know that the cycle of Woman does not create anything, but only repeats Man, while Man himself is the one who creates all value, and makes the repetition of Woman worthwhile in the first place.

Does this mean that Man should not be lightning or sun? Of course Man should not deny these most splendid and powerful aspects of the Sky – of himself – simply because Woman desires them. It is rather a question of denying Woman’s perspective, denying the false centre of Nature and childbirth, in order to affirm the lordship of the Sky – in order to make lightning and sun into vassals of Eternity, rather than servants of the Earth.

But why should Man even bother? What is the reason for man to be lightning and sun? It can only be his own love. Woman must not be the source or the goal of Man’s act, but only the object. Man must know himself to be as infinite and unmovable as the Sky itself, yet still choose to tread down, to let his sun and lightning nourish and strike the Earth. Not because he needs the Earth, but because this is the duty which his own love entails.

In short: Man must make his lightning and sun into a part of the Sky itself – as a part of true Tradition – if they are to reach their original and true glory.

But what more can we say about the Sky? What of sunset and sunrise, twilight and dawn?

For Woman, these are but signs that Man is under her domain – that Man is always forced to return to the womb of the Earth – that the sun of Man must set for her embrace, must let his red blood be spilled over the world, in order to fertilize the soil for the next generation. And that next his son must rise, to yet again satisfy the daylit needs of Woman. Twilight and dawn – for Woman these are but colourful affirmations that her false immortality keeps on turning.

the Sky itself is not the sun; it is not lightning, it is not twilight or dawn, nor the streams of stars; rather, the Sky is that which unites it all in a single Being, the fountainhead from which all these colours and lights of man spring in a heavenly current.

But for Man himself, these sacrifices of twilight and dawn are not acts of need, but of love, just as in the case of the daylit sky. But where is the essential difference? If during the day the sun is chained to nurture Woman below, and during the night is swallowed by her womb to give life to the next generation, the short moments of twilight and dawn are moments of pure freedom.

For here the sun no longer shines downwards, for the benefit for the Earth, but is shattered, broken free. For a short moment, when the sun touches the edge of the horizon, the sun explodes, to cover the whole of the sky in its reds and pinks and golds. The sun is no longer a focused orb, but a free light, which in carefree leaps embrace the whole infinity of space. It is a sun which no longer shines for the sake of the Earth, but for the glory and beauty of the Sky itself.

It is a beauty which is completely Man’s own – a light which shines through the spheres above, inaccessible, self-sufficient and useless to Woman. And in this light – in the pure and airy colours of the Sky itself, which far outshines the dim and heavy colours of any fruit which Woman can bear forth – lies the key to all true beauty in art and action.

Yes, in order to create true art, Man must know of this free, heavenly and self-sufficient light within himself. He must realize that his own love for woman is greater than the woman which he loves – and he must know how to dance freely in this light of his own love.

Have not all men felt that this kind of light is that which strikes deepest and sharpest within our own hearts? The twilight beauty of a heroic death at the end of youth – of men who have crossed the sea to never return, not necessarily because they had to, or because Woman wanted them to, but because they felt an eternal glory and duty calling them on from far beyond. And then, the face of a noble youth cracked in two, morbid beauty shining through rivers of blood, patches of white skin asleep with the innocent peace of Eternity. Men too good and pure for this world, who now have returned home.

And in dawn – the purity of boyish dreams, and the images of an innocent Eden. A peace which does not reek of childbirth and the cycle of Nature – not the fat and bountiful peace Woman wants handed to her by Man – but a peace of the Sky itself. An innocent and slim peace, dancing in slender leaps through pure space, too high and untouchable to even have heard of struggle.

Haven’t all men sometime been brought to silent tears by this kind of light – be it in art or in the acts of real life? Woman cries all the time because she feels sorry for herself – because the world has hurt her weak self, or because she is plagued by silly sentimentality and sympathy – and man should of course never shed such pitiful, emotional tears. But these rare tears of dawn and twilight, they are something else altogether.

They are of pure Sky – not the sign of a weakness in man, but of a moment in which his whole heart is filled with light. A moment in which he is his celestial self – his whole body resonating with true beauty, be it of tragedy or innocence.

How Man would like to linger in these moments of heavenly light. How he wishes that he did not have to leave the Earth below him, but that Woman could follow him upwards, bound together in an ever-ascending movement of eternal dawn, which never breaks into the hardships of the daylit sky. And how he wishes that they would never have to fall into the clutches of the soil, but that he and Woman forever could linger in the somber pink of twilight, united upon the edge of Death itself.

Yes, Man might have a silly dream, of Woman truly understanding and loving this twilight and dawn which he carries within himself – of joining him in his own sincerity. But it is not possible, for this brittle light can only survive within the Sky itself – when it touches the Earth again, it is instantly ruined. Profaned, broken, soiled.

Woman only fawns over this poetry of Man when it is sung for her, or when it sets her man apart from other men. In other cases, she has no patience for it. To actually reveal the true sincerity which man feels for his art of dancing light – to reveal the innocently beautiful tears of twilight and dawn – would in woman only result in open ridicule or hidden disgust.

No, these tears should never be shown to woman – not because man should fear her judgement, but because letting her see them would only debase them.

But what about the night sky? Is there anything left of man in this realm, where the sun has set and the pale, heavy breast of the moon wallows as an unquestioned ruler over the sky? Is this not a realm of darkness, death and dissolution, the absolute opposite of the Sky and Life above? Yet the moon reflects the light of the sun, in the same way as spirit lives through matter, or as a woman knows God through her loved husband. There is no opposition here, if Man knows how to unite with Woman, without being dissolved in her. If Man can embrace her, without letting go of his Sky within.

And while the night sky is a realm of Death, it is not a death of damp soil and dark caverns. The Death of the night sky is rather a sword, which strikes through the thin veil between us and God – revealing the true, swindling depths of the Sky, and the infinitude of Light which dance through his eternal halls. The opaque blue vault in which Woman could believe the whole world was contained is here shattered, and her cycle is laid bare as an infinitely small dot in face of God’s true vastness.

In the night sky, man sees his true self and light disappearing among the dance of infinitely many more. The sun of the day was but a single wave in this current of stars, but at the same time, the struggle of this single, insignificant sun rings through the whole of Eternity, as it takes its righteous place as a star within the eternal depths of the Sky.

For a man of the Sky, the Death of night does not signify dissolution into the Earth, nor does it signify false immortality in the continuation of Earth’s cycle – for him, Death is just the immortalizing of Life. The night sky is but the other side of the daylit sky, existing in an unbreakable union, where the beaming sun and frightening lightning of day is formed by the tranquil silence of the night sky, and the immortality of the night sky is formed by the struggle of the daylit sky.

For a man of the Sky, Death is simply a homecoming, but at the same time, something which makes immortal that struggle of Life which was previously separated from the Sky: Death makes into eternal glory that which previously was but a temporary turn of the cycle.

But the Sky itself is not the sun; it is not lightning, it is not twilight or dawn, nor the streams of stars; rather, the Sky is that which unites it all in a single Being, the fountainhead from which all these colours and lights of man spring in a heavenly current.

The true Sky is the nothing which upholds everything, the nowhere which is everywhere, the infinite through which everything finite moves, the emptiness from which everything solid was born. The Sky is the Unmoved, which yet moves through the lights of the sky, yes, which even permeates every movement and object of the Earth too, eliminating the apparent contradiction between Man above and Woman below.

Of course Sky is not nearly enough to describe Man’s innermost soul – and certainly not enough to describe God himself. But in the case of this little illustration – this little attempt to move upwards – I believe we have reached our limit, which brings us to the next part of this essay. For any upwards striving of Man has its limit, and must correspond to a downwards movement of God himself.

]]> 0
Trump’s Iran War Begins Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:51:29 +0000 On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was assassinated by Serbian conspirators seeking the secession of Slavs from his realm. Austria-Hungry responded by issuing an ultimatum to Serbia and, shortly thereafter, declaring war on the Slavic kingdom. An 1892 French alliance forged with Czarist Russia mandated mobilization in the event of military action by any members of the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. Consequently, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand set off a chain reaction that, in very short order, plunged Europe into the inhuman hell of the First World War. The assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike ordered by President Donald Trump on January 2, 2020, is likely to be viewed by historians, in hindsight, as a comparable catalyst – albeit one with even more catastrophic consequences.

Even an American assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would not have triggered the kind of retaliation that everyone ought to expect from Iran and its proxies in the coming days.

General Soleimani (age sixty-two) was leader of Iran’s Qods Force, the elite expeditionary wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). “Haj Qassem” was from a poor peasant family in the Kerman province of Iran. He spent his youth as a construction worker paying off his father’s debts. A decorated veteran of the Iran-Iraq War who – in his rare interviews – wistfully spoke of wanting to be martyred so that he could rejoin his friends and fallen comrades, Soleimani refused to wear body armor or even a bullet proof vest when commanding the Qods Force in its numerous battles against ISIL and other Sunni Islamist fighters in Iraq and Syria. Although renowned for his humility, in December of 2017, Soleimani refused to even open a letter from the chief of the CIA that was hand delivered to him. It was around then that Time magazine named Soleimani among the top 100 most influential figures in the world, describing him as the “James Bond” and “Erwin Rommel” of “Middle Eastern Shi’ites.”1 Foreign Policy named him as among the most influential “Global Thinkers” and “the most powerful general in the Middle East today.2

In the wake of his assassination, General Soleimani has been characterized as the second most powerful man in the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, the truth is that even an American assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would not have triggered the kind of retaliation that everyone ought to expect from Iran and its proxies in the coming days. Unlike the Supreme Leader, General Soleimani was widely viewed as a national hero by Iranians across the political spectrum. Even those patriots most vehemently opposed to the Islamic ideology of Iran’s current regime harbored in their hearts a sneaking admiration for “Sardar Soleimani.” His martyrdom is likely to accomplish what could barely be conceived as the consequence of the death of any other Iranian leader: the solidarity of hitherto embattled and embittered religious and nationalist factions against foreign aggression.

The reaction outside of Iran is likely to be even more vehement. After the American toppling of Saddam Hussein and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 opened a vacuum of power in the Middle East that was quickly filled by the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), it was Soleimani who led the Arab Shi’ite resistance against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. He played a key role in the unification of Iraqi Shi’ite militias into the umbrella organization Hashd al-Shaabi or the “Popular Mobilization Forces.” The group’s leader, Abu-Mahdi Al-Muhandis, was riding in the same vehicle with Soleimani near Baghdad airport when the two of them were killed by Trump’s drone strike. It was Hashd al-Shaabi who had organized the protests against the continued American occupation of Iraq outside the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 31, 2019, which President Trump has used as a casus belli for assassinating Soleimani and Muhandis.

When President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton emboldened the nascent Caliphate by destabilizing Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, Soleimani’s reach also deepened from Baghdad to Damascus. He has worked closely with the Lebanese Hezbollah, who admire him as ardently as the Arab fighters that he commanded in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, the first significant response to Soleimani’s assassination has been a declaration from the Hezbollah militia that it intends to retaliate by attacking all American bases in the region. Israel has gone into full war-preparedness in response to this threat. It is an open secret that the Israelis had more than one opportunity to assassinate Soleimani while he was operating in Syria, but were warned against doing so by US military and intelligence officials who fathomed the catastrophic escalation that would ensue from this act of war. For the same reasons, Trump’s order is already being widely criticized by geopolitical analysts and condemned by some members of the US congress.

The latter should be hardly surprised that their exclusive constitutional power to declare war has been undermined. This is exactly the kind of thing that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s April 8, 2019 designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization was intended to facilitate. Under the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force in the Global War on Terrorism passed by Congress after 9/11, the President of the United States is invested with the authority to strike “terrorists” anywhere at any time. Never mind that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were Saudis acting with the backing of elites within the regime of Saudi Arabia, America’s closest Muslim ally – and Iran’s greatest regional adversary. Never mind that, in the wake of 9/11, General Soleimani was among the Iranian officials who clandestinely volunteered to collaborate with the United States in military operations against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Never mind that Iran rescinded that good will offer only after America intended to colonize Iraq, a region that served as the capital district of Iran for over a thousand years during three successive Persian Empires. Baghdad or Bogh-Dâd is an ancient Persian name, meaning “Given by God” or “God’s Justice.” Even after the advent of Islam, most of “Iraq” was part of Shi’ite Iran until around 1750.

Trump’s order is already being widely criticized by geopolitical analysts and condemned by some members of the US congress.

An Iranian flag is likely to be flying over that originally Persian city again in the very near future. The fact that the protesters at the US Embassy in Baghdad were able to make their way through numerous checkpoints and into the heart of the supposedly secure “green zone” established by American colonizers attests to the depth and breadth of Iranian influence within Iraq’s government. Hashd al-Shaabi, the militia coalition who organized the protests, consists of Iraqi Shi’ites so devout that during the Iran-Iraq war they defected to Iran’s side and fought for the Islamic Republic against Saddam Hussein. The majority of the Shi’ite dominated Iraqi government that was democratically elected after the US overthrow of Saddam in 2003 consists of Iraqi politicians who spent the 1980s and 1990s living under political asylum in Iran and forging close working relationships with Iran’s theocratic elite. Much of this Iranian theocratic elite, in turn, was born or raised in Shi’ite holy cities such as Najaf and Karbala that are situated in the artificial nation-state of “Iraq.”

Just a week before the assassination of Soleimani and Muhandis, the December 27 issue of Newsweek ran a dramatic cover story titled “If Iran Falls, ISIS May Rise Again.”3 The article rightly identifies Iran as the leading force resisting the rise of the would-be Sunni fundamentalist Caliphate. What Newsweek does not dare to admit is that ISIS – or DAESH as I prefer to call it (out of respect for the ancient Egyptian goddess) – was effectively created, armed, and funded by the United States and its chief regional ally, Saudi Arabia. This Frankenstein’s monster of the American military-industrial complex not only carried out a genocide of ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria, DAESH also attempted to erase the Pre-Islamic Iranian artistic and architectural heritage by smashing, drilling, and dynamiting “pagan” monuments in Nineveh, Mosul, and Palmyra – cities that had been part of the Achaemenid, Parthian, and Sassanian Empires of Iran. Far from the grotesque caricature promulgated in American media, the Shi’ite militias effectively led by Soleimani and Muhandis in Iraq were not simply fanatical sectarian groups. Hashd al-Shaabi included Arab Christians and even Yezidi Kurds, and General Soleimani repeatedly rescued the Kurds of northern Iraq (who are ethnically Iranian) from genocidal DAESH oppression, regardless of whether they were Sunnis, Shi’ites, or even “Satanist” Yezidis.

The Newsweek article is on point when it concludes that an American-led attempt to effect regime change by toppling the Islamic Republic would not only cripple the main force of resistance to DAESH, allowing the Caliphate to rise again, but that it would also open the way for DAESH operations inside of an increasingly balkanized Iran. Sunni minorities in the Khuzestan (or as these Arabs call it “Al-Ahwaz”), Kurdistan, and Baluchistan regions on Iran’s Western and Southeastern borders would attempt secession from “Persia” and turn their territories into havens for Sunni terrorists.

This will prove, in both blood and treasure, to be the most costly war that Americans have ever waged in the short history of the United States.

The more militantly anti-Persian elements within these minorities have long been the favorites of Neocon advocates for regime change in Iran, such as former US National Security Advisor John Bolton. Despite Bolton’s dismissal, they played a significant role in fomenting the violent riots that rocked Iran in mid to late November of 2019. These insurgents hijacked protests by up to 200,000 Iranians against an increase in fuel prices (or a cut in state subsidies for gasoline), which measure was meant to save the Iranian economy in the face of Trump’s crippling sanctions. By the time the regime put out the fires, 731 banks and 140 government buildings had been destroyed by arsonists. Of the 1,500 protesters killed, many were fired on by suspiciously clad agent provocateurs or hidden snipers. The Islamist-Marxist People’s Mojahedin of Iran, for whom John Bolton was a lobbyist, admitted to its role in the riots, but armed Sunni insurgents undoubtedly also played a significant role. Government officials intercepted numerous caches of armaments being smuggled into the country in order to bring about a “Syrianization” of Iran. But Iran is not another Syria, let alone another Iraq.

“Iraq” and “Syria” are, like most of the countries in the Islamic World, totally artificial states engineered by European colonialists. Iran is a cohesive 3,000 year old nation that has dominated the Middle East and Central Asia during the course of four Persian Empires, with the first of them being founded around 500 BC by the Achaemenids and the latest of them rising in 1500 AD under the Safavids. The last of these empires, Safavid Iran, fused Iranian national identity with Shi’ite spirituality in a way that cemented Iran’s role within the region as the bastion of resistance against the Caliphate concept of Sunni Muslims – a role that Iran began to play in earnest when, in the twelfth century, the Order of Assassins fought the Caliphate while simultaneously defending their territories – including those in present-day “Iraq” and “Syria” against the Western Crusaders.

The Islamic Republic of Iran would be far more resilient in the face of an armed regime-change effort than Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Assad himself is nothing more than a client of Iran. The so-called Iranian “opposition” consists of a variety of factions afflicted with rabid infighting, lacking in legitimacy, organization, competence, and vision. Most of them are outright traitors. Those who are advocates of the balkanization of Iran are on the payroll of the CIA, the MOSSAD, or the Saudis, all of whom want to carve a neutered rump state of “Persia” out of the mutilated corpse of any Iranian nation that is capable of resisting Neoliberalism, Zionism, and Wahabism.

The Iranian drone strikes that incapacitated half of Saudi oil production on September 14, 2019, for which Iran’s Shi’ite proxy in Yemen was willing to take responsibility, is just a hint of what Iran could unleash throughout the Islamic World if it were to face an existential threat. No man embodied and epitomized the transnational and extra-territorial reach of Iran throughout the Shi’ite regions of the Islamic World more than General Qassem Soleimani. By assassinating Haj Qassem, Trump has declared war, not only on Iran, but also on Shi’ite Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. As in the case of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, this act of war is likely to catalyze an international conflict that will eventually become global in its scope of destruction. It is that crucible or fiery forge that allows the euphemistically veiled “Global War on Terrorism” to reveal its true form as the Third World War. This will prove, in both blood and treasure, to be the most costly war that Americans have ever waged in the short history of the United States. It may even prove to be for the United States what the invasion of Afghanistan was for the Soviet Union – a harbinger of doom, terminal decline, and disintegration. I wager that on the other side of this war, the proud Persian people will still be standing in defiant defense of their 3,000 year old civilization.


1Kenneth M. Pollack, “Major General Qasem Soleimani,” Time.

2Stanley McChrystal, “Iran’s Deadly Puppet Master,” Foreign Policy. Winter 2019.

3Tom O’Connor, “If Iran Falls, ISIS May Rise Again,” Newsweek. December 10, 2019.

]]> 17
Being of the Right Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:27:55 +0000 Right and Left are designations that refer to a political society which is already in crisis. In Traditional regimes, these designations did not exist, at least as they are presently understood. There could be opposition in Traditional regimes, but not of a revolutionary kind — which is to say, of a kind which calls the whole system into question. This opposition was rather loyalistic and in a certain way functional; thus in England it was possible to speak of ‘His Majesty’s most loyal opposition’.1 Things changed after the emergence of the subversive movements of more recent times, and, as is known, the Right and the Left were defined on the basis of the place they respectively occupied in the parliament of the opposing parties.

Right and Left are designations that refer to a political society which is already in crisis.

Depending on the plane which one intends to discuss, the Right takes on different meanings. There is an economic Right based on capitalism, which is not without its legitimacy, only supposing that it does not attempt to make itself master and that its antithesis is understood to be socialism and Marxism.

So far as the political Right goes, it de rigueur acquires its full significance if it exists within a monarchy in an organic State — as has been the case above all in central Europe, and partially as well in conservative England.

But one can also lay aside institutional presuppositions to speak of a Right in terms of a spiritual orientation and a vision of the world. In this case the Right, apart from standing against democracy and every ‘social’ myth, signifies a defence of the values of the Tradition as spiritual, aristocratic and warrior values (this last derivatively, and only with reference to a strict military tradition, as occurred for instance in Prussianism). It means moreover nourishing a certain disdain for intellectualism and for the bourgeois fetish of the ‘cultivated man’. (A member of an ancient Piedmont family once paradoxically said, ‘I divide our world into two classes: the nobility on the one hand and those with a degree on the other’, and Ernst Jünger, in support of this, promoted the antidote to be found in a ‘healthy illiteracy’.)

To be of the Right means also to be conservative, but not in the static sense. The obvious presupposition of conservatism is that there is something worthy of being conserved; but this sets us before the difficult problem of where such a thing is to be found in Italy’s recent past, in the time following its unification: eighteenth-century Italy has certainly not left us an inheritance of higher values to protect, such as might serve as a foundation. Even looking further into the past, none but the most sporadic Right-wing positions are to be encountered in Italy’s history; we have been lacking in a formative unitary force such as existed in other nations, which were long ago established by the ancient monarchical traditions of the aristocratic oligarchies.

However, in asserting that the Right should not be characterised by a static conservatism, we intend to say that it must have at bottom certain values and certain ideas, like to a stable ground, and that these must be given various expressions fit to the development of the times, lest we be left behind, and unable to take up, control and incorporate whatever might come our way amidst changing circumstances. This is the only way in which a man of the Right can conceive of ‘progress’; not simple movement ahead, as all too often the left likes to think. Bernanos wittily spoke of a ‘flight forward’ in this context (‘Où fuyez-vous en avant, imbéciles?’).2 ‘Progressivism’ is a ghost, and is alien to every position of the Right. All the moreso since, in a general consideration of the course of history, with reference to spiritual values, and not to material values (technological conquests, etc.), the man of the Right is bound to recognise in it a descent, not a progress and a true ascent. The developments of present-day society can do naught but confirm this conviction.

For a man of the Right, certain principles always constitute his solid basis, his terra firma in the face of transition and contingency.

The positions taken up by the Right are necessarily anti-socialist,3 anti-plebeian and aristocratic; thus, their positive counterpart is to be sought in the affirmation of the ideal State as a structured, organic, hierarchical state, sustained by a principle of authority. So far as this last is concerned, various difficulties emerge with respect to the question of whence such a principle is to draw its foundation and its chrism. It is obvious that this cannot come from below, from the demos — which, with apologies to the Mazzinians of yesterday and today — in now way expresses the vox Dei.4 If anything, quite the contrary. Also to be excluded are dictatorial and ‘Napoleonic’ solutions, which can have at best a transitive value, in situations of emergency and in purely contingent and temporary terms.

Once more, we are constrained to refer rather to a dynastic continuity — provided always, of course, in the case of a monarchical regime, that one keeps in view what has been called ‘authoritarian constitutionalism’, which is to say a power which is not purely representative but nonetheless acts and regulates. This is the ‘decisionism’ of which de Maistre and Donoso Cortés spoke with reference to decisions constituting the limit-case, including all the responsibility which is connected thereto; this responsibility is to be taken on by a single person when he finds himself standing before the necessity of direct intervention, when the existing order has entered into crisis or new forces have debouched on the political scene.

Let us repeat, however, that this kind of rejection of a ‘static conservatism’ does not regard principles. For a man of the Right, certain principles always constitute his solid basis, his terra firma in the face of transition and contingency; and here, ‘counter-revolution’ must stand as our clarion watchword. Or if one prefers, one might make reference instead to the only apparently paradoxical formula of a ‘conservative revolution’. This concerns all initiatives that are to be instituted toward the removal of existing negative situations, and which are necessary for a restoration, for an adequate recovery of whatever has intrinsic value and whatever cannot be called into question. In truth, in conditions of crisis and subversion, it can be said that nothing has so revolutionary a character as the very recovery of these values. There is an ancient saying, usu vetera novant,5 and it sheds light on the same context: the renewal which might be realised through the recovery of the ‘ancient’, which is to say, our immutable Traditional heritage. With this, we believe that the positions of the man of the Right have been sufficiently clarified.


1The expression is given in English in the original. — Trans.

2The citation is French: ‘Whither are you fleeing, fools?’ It is taken from an essay by French novelist Georges Bernanos (1888-1948) entitled La France contre les robots (France Against the Robots). The original French differs slightly from Evola’s reproduction: ‘Que fuyez-vous donc, imbeciles?’ meaning ‘From what are you fleeing, fools?’ The response which Bernanos furnishes very much accords however with Evola’s argument in the present chapter: ‘Alas! You are fleeing from yourselves… One understands nothing of modern civilization if one does not first admit that it is a universal conspiracy against every kind of interior life.’ Bernanos is perhaps best remembered for his novel Diary of a Country Priest, which treats of a young but ailing pastor who, assigned to a troubled country parish, struggles against spiritual temptation and faithlessness. Bernanos was a Roman Catholic, a monarchist and an anti-democrat, who nonetheless manifested great intolerance for the politics of his epoch: though he fought in the First World War, he spent the entirety of the Second in self-imposed exile in South America. — Trans.

3Italian: antisocietarie, literally ‘anti-societal’ or ‘anti-corporate’. Obviously neither of these words represents what Evola has in mind here, which is rather opposition to Marxism in its social aspect. — Trans.

4Reference to the Latin expression Vox populi, vox dei; ‘the voice of the people is the voice of God’. Quite fittingly, it made its historical debut as the title of a Whig tract in 1709, and has since been used in a variety of (generally philo-liberal and philo-democratic) contexts. — Trans.

5A Latin phrase which René Guénon found inscribed into the architrave of an old gate in Guénon’s native city of Blois. The original phrase read Usu vetera nova, ‘Use makes old things new’. Evola’s modification reads instead ‘Old things become new in the use’. – Trans.

]]> 1
Merkel’s Great Migration Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:27:57 +0000 In 2005 Angela Merkel1 was elected Chancellor of Germany. She was voted in by her own party, the Christian Democrats, as well as her predecessor’s party, the Social Democrats, with whom she later formed a so-called Grand Coalition.2 While at the beginning of her campaign it seemed that her party might almost gain an absolute majority thanks to Germany’s economic problems at that time along with Chancellor Schroeder’s3 neo-liberal reforms (Agenda 2010)4 and cut-backs of social benefits, which all in all where completely against any Social Democratic convictions, on the other hand, both parties were almost equally strong at the outcome of this election due to Schroeder’s alpha-male stage presence and his campaigning, in which he especially bashed Merkel’s plans to raise the sales tax and capitalized on the anti-intellectual resentment of parts of the German population, speaking in a condescending tone of her economic advisor Paul Kirchof5 as ‘this Professor from Heidelberg’.6

All this taught Merkel that the German vox populi can change very easily and very violently, and that one will fast lose political power if one does not go along with it.

She applied this lesson again as a result of (among other things, like the abolishment of mandatory conscription)7 the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.8 Large parts of the German population have long held a strong resentment towards nuclear energy, not just on the Left but across the political spectrum, with conservative farmers often at the forefront.9 This resentment was fuelled by the Chernobyl disaster, when during one year many people in parts of Germany had to throw away their homegrown food as a result of the nuclear fallout following the Soviet accident. To this day it is advised not to eat boar shot in parts of Bavaria, as it still has high levels of nuclear radioactivity.10 Also there is to this day no solution to the storage question of nuclear waste in Germany, and all nuclear waste is stored in a very disorderly way in old salt mines.11 For reason of this opposition to nuclear energy, the red-green Schroeder administration managed to achieve a deal with nuclear energy companies, under the pressure of NGOs and activists, to shut down all nuclear energy plants until the year of 2020.

All this taught Merkel that the German vox populi can change very easily and very violently, and that one will fast lose political power if one does not go along with it.

The liberal-conservative Merkel administration (2009-2013) following the Social Democratic/Conservative coalition (2005-2009) decided to roll back on this deal for economic reasons and to prolong the runtime of some nuclear power plants. The support for nuclear energy has always been part of the platform for both parties, somewhat comparable to low taxes for the Republicans in the US.

Her own administration’s decision has been revoked, with an even shorter timeline to shut down nuclear energy than the original Schroeder agreement about nuclear energy, out of fear of the impending state elections in Baden-Württemberg, which the Green party won as a result of the explosion of Fukushima and the resulting increase in opposition to nuclear energy, added to other local controversies like that regarding the new main train station Stuttgart 21.12

Despite the roll back on nuclear energy, the Green Party obtained primacy in the state election in Baden-Württemberg, where it rules up till the present day.13

This sent shock waves through the CDU, Germany and Baden-Württemberg, which has always been ‘a black hole’ (black being the unofficial CDU colour) since the end of World War II.14 One could compare this local tectonic shift to something like the Democrats winning Texas in a double digits landslide.

All the mechanics of following the people’s mood swings, which were at work leading up to the new nuclear energy policy, were at work again during the migration crisis beginning in 2015 and continuing to the present day.

From the 1990s up to 2015, the CDU Angela Merkel took a quite critical approach to both migration and multiculturalism, although more in rhetoric than in practice. The following events are worth recalling in this context:

• The constitutional change that only people who haven’t come across or from safe third states (e.g. Austria, Italy etc.) can apply for asylum status, as a result of the first asylum wave, and especially of the Balkan wars and the riots in Eastern Germany;15

• Merkel’s claim that: ‘multi-culti has failed, absolutely failed’;16

• The state elections campaign in North Rhein-Westphalia against chancellor Schroeder’s intentions to recruit IT specialists from India under the motto Kinder statt Inder (meaning that German children should be educated to fill IT positions, rather than importing qualified Indians for the same);17

• Angela Merkel telling the daughter of a Palestinian in state TV that not everybody gets to stay in Germany (and receiving a huge backlash on account of it).18

So why did she let the migrant wave happen?

The reason is simple. The better part of the population, primarily from Western Germany, wanted it to happen, or more precisely would not oppose it for ethical reasons.19

This attitude is often credited by people on the Right to the re-education20 efforts by the Western Allies and the overall liberalization of Western Germany and all of Europe in the aftermath of the Second World War, as well as the ongoing focus on the German crimes against humanity during WWII.21 While this is not entirely wrong, it is rather inconclusive since it doesn’t take into account post-war history and the influence that this more recent history has had on the German psyche. Many of these tectonic shifts have taken place not just in (Western) Germany but all over Western Europe, meaning former Cold War NATO territory, including its periphery, with Sweden at the forefront.22

The best description of these mechanisms in the Western World can probably be found in Jean Raspial’s Camp of Saints, published in the 1970s.23 It is astonishing to the author the extent to which many people with pro-migration sentiments compare to characters in this book – not even primarily those on the left (which would not have been a surprise), but deep into the Christian Conservative sector, Catholics and Protestants alike. Whether the pro-migration sentiment first emerged within the churches,24, 25 or whether the churches followed the present-day political climate in their pro-migration stance, is hard to decide, especially so far as the Lutheran Protestant Church is concerned, since it has since its beginning been especially close to power, starting already from the times of Martin Luther26 and the success of the Reformation thanks to the Frederic III of Saxony,27 up to the third Reich28 and the present day.29 Cuius regio, eius religio30 or cuius religio, eius regio: this is the question.

Despite this, Germany is a special case to study here. Not just because it was at the forefront of the migrant crisis — some might argue in fact that it even caused it, and subsequently bore the larger portion of its weight; but it also deserves to be studied especially because it does carries both the heritage of post-WWII Western history and also that of Eastern history.

In a way, the German separation during the Cold War, a separation which often divided families, has discredited the idea of border control as a whole.

The experience of the Iron curtain31 and the Berlin Wall32 stand out particularly here, where every man, woman and child trying to cross it was either shot, blown up in a mine field, or captured and imprisoned. In a way, the German separation during the Cold War, a separation which often divided families, has discredited the idea of border control as a whole, and it is easy to push the button for a ‘no nation-no border’ policy as Green Party politician Katrin Göring-Eckart did, in a quotation to which AfD leader Jörg Meuthen likes to humourously refer.33 Germany today is basically a nation without borders, since even it seldom enforces border controls even against neighbouring nations that are not parties to the Schengen Agreement,34 despite the toll that this brings for the people living in the border regions, ranging from cheap labour to trans-border crime.35

Added to this, and even more important, is the history of the anti-asylum, anti-foreigner riots after the German reunification in the 1990s,36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 where the frustration that many felt about their economic situation and their alienation within the new reunited Germany broke out in the most despicable form, delivering the world photographs of the ugly Germans, where in the first row the youth were throwing Molotov cocktails into houses with people still inside (asylum seekers or treaty workers from Vietnam or Africa); but even more important than this, in the second row their parents and local residents could be seen watching and sometimes applauding or actively justifying their behaviour on TV. Some people were even throwing Hitler salutes openly into the camera, while wearing wetted pants, this supposedly being the consequence of their having drunk too much.42 Looking at the pictures from Hoyerwerda or Rostock-Lichtenhagen, one wonders if this is what the prelude to the downfall of a civilization looks like, and to what degree it actually represents the same, since in a way not just a state, the GDR, but a whole ideology – namely, Marxism – imploded from Hoyersverda to Vladivostok.

But how did this come to pass after all the joy over German reunification?

While at the beginning of German reunification many believed that their living standards in Eastern Germany would soon be equalized to those of Western Germany, their expectations were strongly disappointed.

The industry of Eastern Germany was sold by the German state to primarily Western German investors with the intention of gaining enough funding to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure in Eastern Germany.43 This intention did not work out. To this day, Eastern Germany is dependent on large financial transfers44 from Western Germany, where the same money is increasingly required. Parts of the Rhinelands and the Ruhr area particularly are starting look look like Eastern Germany in the early years after the reunification, since the old coal and steel industry has not been replaced by new jobs and technologies.45

Whether the Truehand46, 47 (the institution responsible for GDR companies) did its best under the given circumstances, or whether it represented a plundering by Western German interests supported by a free-market neo-liberal ideology is a judgement the author is unwilling to make. The truth, like always, lies presumeably somewhere in the middle.

In the end the Treuhand made a loss of 250 billion Deutschmark until 1994 for the newly reunited Germany. Much could be said about this process and the corruption that accompanied it. But the unemployment rate in Eastern Germany,48 as well as the migration rate to Western Germany,49 speak for themselves, and permit conclusions about the fears and grievances of the people left behind on the territory of the former GDR.

To this day, parts of the Eastern German population do not perceive German reunification as a true reunification50 of a people, but rather an expansion of Western Germany onto the territory of the former GDR or as an act of colonialization. Today, even the right-wing populist AfD, which is gaining considerably more support in the East than in the West, is led disproportionately more by Western Germans, even in the East itself. Furthermore, no university rector is of Eastern German heritage in Eastern Germany.51

This frustration in the early 1990s was fertile soil for large parts of the German Old Right (e.g. the DVU,52 the NPD53 etc.) who believed that their time had come. That is to say – for those who held or now hold strong Neo-Nazi belief, who now began to strongly engage in Eastern Germany.

It was into this climate that refugees from the Balkans came, consisting of various ethnicities54 including Sinti and Roma from Romania (most of the time with their asylum requests being rejected);55 these were redistributed from Western Germany. In a way this was perceived as a second dispossession, an ethno-cultural dispossession following the economic one.

While migration in Western Germany was and is perceived more as a natural occurrence or a moral responsibility, in the East migration is perceived as something actively suffered due to the heritage of having lived under an all-controlling state, or as Karl Popper56 would say, a ‘closed society’.

The state as well as the local authorities were completely unprepared for this redistribution. From stealing in shops to public defecating as a result of a lack of sanitary facilities, up to the question of housing and homelessness, the problems were adding up. And the police to some degree ignored both migrant crimes and increasing hostile activities, like throwing stones through windows, on the part of the German population. The police was thus unable to uphold order, and was unsupported by politics.57

It was impossible that such a situation would not escalate. Then the riots broke out.

Everyone on the Right, however he understands his political stance, should look closely at those pictures. To this day, they are one of the main justifications for multiculturalism (which is itself the supposedly greatest antithesis to the actions these pictures captured) and an open-borders policy, best seen in the Amadeu Antonio Foundation,58 founded and run by a former STASI informant, Anetta Kahane,59 and named after the victim of deadly Neo-Nazi violence during the time following reunification.

To be very clear here, on a personal note, if had been up to author, these rioters would have gotten one warning to stop, followed by warning shots; and they would, if they had not willingly stopped and dispersed, been put down with the same set of methods that the Chinese People’s Party used in Tianamen Square60 – not because these actions taint and poison the discourse about migration to the present day, but because of the sheer moral disgust one cannot help but feel upon looking at them. The author has no sympathy for any sort of mob rule, and this sort of action in particular. The same would have applied for the far-left riots at the G20 summit in Hamburg 2017;61 this is a judgement the author makes completely independent of personal political conviction. Medieval mob rule or terrorism can never be tolerated.

But back to 2015, while historically no party to the Right of the Christian Democrats enjoyed long-term success, Merkel rightfully feared she would lose votes to the left before the refugee crisis.

That is why Angela Merkel opened the borders: because she feared the pictures that would have naturally occurred had she stopped these caravans by force.

That is why in 2015 Angela Merkel opened the borders, or more precisely failed to close them: not because of a global conspiracy to end Germany, but because she feared the pictures that would have naturally occurred had she stopped these caravans by force.62 Such an act would have gathered large opposition from far-left extremists up to Conservative Christians, the churches being at the forefront of pro-migration demands and Christian conservatives being among the core electorate of her party the CDU.

Back then Minister of the Interior Thomas de Maiziere (CDU) was ready to stop the incoming migration, or at least to control it, by mobilizing the German Federal Police to get the situation under hand. This however would have been political suicide, as even the formerly conservative-liberal ‘Springerpresse’, the declared enemies of the student revolt of 1968, ran a ‘refugees welcome’63 campaign. One can only imagine the pictures of crying mothers and children on the front page of the ‘BILD’ boulevard newspaper (comparable to the British Sun). These pictures would have been Merkel’s political end. One foretaste of these negative pictures, which are so capable of strongly shaping the public opinion, was given to us with the photograph of the dead Alan Kurdi, a drowned Syrian child washed up on a shore of the Mediterreanian.64

Chancellor Merkel gave her people what they demanded, with portions of the population clapping at the arrival of migrants via train65 – though this is a fact these same people are often rather unwilling to be reminded of. It was populism in its purest form.

That this sort of clapping was more a sort of virtue-signalling directed at the rest of the German population and at the world, to show everyone how much the Germans have changed since National Socialist and Soviet Marxist days or the riots of the 1990s, was of course lost on those parts of the world which furnished the migration in the furst place, and was seen by those populations as an open invitation. How could they have interpreted it in any other way?

Only after the infamous Silverster night of Cologne,66 the night a huge number of non-European migrants sexually assaulted German women, did a change of attitude occur within large parts of the German population, a mood swing that allowed Angela Merkel to make a deal with Turkey, in order at least to at get the migration coming from Turkey to Europe under control.

For historical accuracy, it has to be mentioned that the perpetrators of this act of collective sexual assault, not seen since the mass rape of German women by the Red Army, were mostly from the Maghreb region (Tunesia, Morroco and Algeria),67 and disproportionately less from Syria.

This deal is now the main leverage which Erdogan, the present-day President of Turkey, holds over Europe, since if he were to allow the millions of refugees in Turkey, but also in Lebanon, to migrate uncontrolled into the EU, the present-day political system would implode, if not public order as a whole. The EU and Turkey are presently in a Mexican stand-off. Europe is depending on Turkey in terms of migration and Turkey is depending on the EU in terms of its economy, which is currently in a crisis.68 The former brand of Western secularism, forged by Kemal Attatürk,69 as well as the enmity towards Communism, have vanished under the authoritarian Turkish nationalist Islamist President Erdogan,70 and have been replaced by permanent tension.

The EU has created the same dependency by outsourcing migrant control of Sub-Saharan origin to those of its North African partners71, 72 that have a coastal border with the Mediterranean sea (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt). These new borders are in a way remniscant of those bounding the Roman Empire.

Where this outsourcing of the bad deed of migration control to Northern African countries will lead is unclear at the moment. The EU is washing its hands in all innocence, as Pontius Pilate once did. Whether the EU could control its borders and migration (including remigration) at all and at the same time uphold its self-given humanitarian values is rather unlikely. It is presumably easier and cheaper to outsource the entire mess to its Turkish and African periphery, closing its eyes to the human rights violations that inevitably occur there. By geographically restricting the misery of these migrants in Africa to the desert of Libya and the Maghreb region, one avoids the pictures of drowning people in one’s own sphere of the Mediterranian Sea – a convenience one purchases only at the price of increasing political dependence.

Despite being tourist destinations, the Maghreb countries were not declared safe third states in Germany (which would mean that the citizens of the region have no prospect of getting asylum), as any attempt by the Merkel administration to grant it this status is blocked in the Bundesrat (the second legistlative chamber, consisting in delegates from the German federal state governments), primarily by the Green Party.

Many other incidents like the terrorist attack on a Christmas market with a truck, committed by a Tunisian,73 made it increasingly clear that the vision of colourful, multicultural Germany will not manifest. The security measures, especially the Beton blockade stones,74 which are meant to protect public festivities or Christmas markets and which have the appearance of oversized Legos, speak for themselves.

All of this leads to increasing success for the Right-wing populist AfD, which has entered one state parliament after another, and joined the Bundestag in 2017 at around 13%, with much larger successes in Eastern Germany than in Western Germany,75 even while labouring under increasing pressure from German intelligence services76 and parts of the so-called civic society (churches,77 trade unions78 etc.).

The AfD itself could enjoy much greater successes in Western Germany if parts of it, especially the ‘Flügel’79 (meaning ‘wing’), or the Right-wing portion of the AfD, did not engage in unnecessary, easily or purposely misinterpretable rhetoric, as Björn Höcke80 often does. Such an attitude alienates those parts of the Western German bourgouisie which are necessary for any wide success, as many of these people agree with AfD politics on migration but also hear ‘the drumming through the earth’81 and the marching of jackboots whenever it moves, just because some people want to provoke the mainstream with the last unbreakable taboo, namely that of German nationalism and National Socialism in particular.

As a former history teacher, Björn Höcke well knows that when he speaks of a ‘thousand years of Germany’82 people think foremost of the ‘thousand year Reich’ of the Nazis,83 and not of German history as such, beginning with the Ottonians in 919 A.C.84 This sort of rhetoric might attract those people frustrated with present-day politics by angering the right elements within the liberal establishment, but it cannot achieve this without the aforementioned cost. Furthermore it implicitly supports the mantra of the ‘anti-fascist’ Left, shared by parts of the political centre, to the effect that any thought and politics on the part of the Right is inadvertently Nazi, Fascist etc.

It is among the great ironies of history that in the parts of Germany which fell under the control of the ideology of international Marxist Communism, the population holds much more nationalist patriotic views when it comes to migration.

This is however difficult to understand only at first glance, as upon closer inspection, one realizes that the socialist GDR (German Democratic Republic) was much more Prussian or German in real life than its Western counterpart, the FRG (Federal Republic of Germany). For one, according to the Soviet Communist ideology, the political systems of Fascism and National Socialism were by far less the spontaneous expression of the Italian or the German nation themselves, than the product of a dysfunctional capitalist system85 with various capital interests fighting each other – a not unwelcome view during the Cold War, as it seemed to indicate Western Germany as the successor of the old National Socialist State.86

While this view is not altogether right, it is not entirely wrong either. That the Nazi Party was funded in part (though not the decisive part) and supported by German industry87 is widely known, as is the fact that large segments of the non-working population, but even parts of the working class as well, were eager to support both ideologies to combat Communism and to protect their own economic interest.

This view was further supported by the fact that parts of the economic elites of Nazi Germany could continue their careers in the Federal Republic of Germany after short imprisonments (e.g. the names Flick88 and Krupp89 come to mind), and could profit from this, not even losing their capital, which they acquired through war profiteering and slave work (sometimes with cosmetic adjustments under pressure from the Allies).

Once more for historical fairness it has to be stated that parts of the former Nazi elite from the second and third tier also integrated into the Soviet-occupied GDR. The best example is Erich Apel,90 who was one of the chief engineers of Wernher von Braun, and later became head of the Chief Planning Committee of the GDR – that is to say, head of the administration of the whole planning economy of the GDR. He shot himself in 1965 for unknown reasons.

One could argue that both sides needed old talents to rebuild their portions of the now-separated Germany. But one could also say that they proved the old German saying right, ‘that one can stir the soup as long as one wants, but the fat always floats to the top’.

This generation of capitalist industry leaders was destined to hold a large portion of influence in the post-war Western Germany.

Another interesting point, proving that the GDR was in a way a form of Marxist socialism with some Prussian elements, is the National People’s Army (Nationale Volksarmee), which under Soviet occupation decided, in contrast to the Western German Bundeswehr, to purposfully pursue the German Prussian military tradition in style and doctrine. The parades and uniforms that resulted from this choice can be studied on YouTube.91, 92, 93 The uniforms and the marching style of this Marxist army speak for themselves. It might be said that one can take the Marxist out of Prussia, as many of the early SED leadership fled from the Nazis to Moscow,94 but one cannot take the Prussian out of the Marxist.

Following Friedrich Schiller’s dictum ‘that it’s the mind that forms the body’, the leadership of the SED is also aesthetically highly interesting from this perspective, as they range in their tediousness somewhere from Michael Ende’s Grey Men in Momo95 to manifestations of Hannah Arendt’s ‘banality of evil’.96 They were as far from the charismatic revolutionaries of Latin America or the early Soviet Union as they could be, a fact that permits one to draw conclusions as to the mindset of these men.97

But most interestingly, the migration policy of this ‘real-existing socialism’ was far more restrictive than anything demanded by the most Right-wing European populist governments, and not only in terms of its border control.98 Refugees and migrants, mostly from socialist brother countries or movements, were mostly housed separately from the German population.99 It was always clear from the very beginning that every migration to the GDR was to be for a limited time and was to end with remigration, whether the migrant in question was a Vietnamese or an African treaty worker100 or a refugee. However, in the meantime they received a comparably high level of education, especially for refugees under the premise of international solidarity, so as to strengthen and form them for the day they would return home. The prime example is the former president of Chile, who was trained as doctor in the GDR.101

Furthermore, any integration in Eastern German society was unwanted and actively discouraged. Foreign women who became pregnant were both remigrated and/or pushed to have an abortion, among other measures (a practice that the author highly opposes and has no wish to see return, as he holds a strong pro-life view). Whether they were men or women, their families following them into the DGR was not part of the plan. In comparison to Western Germany, Eastern Germany was marked by the timely limited rotation of foreign workers, whereas in the West the German industry pushed for the prolonging of work visas for their foreign workers, trying to keep their now cheap yet also trained workforce; and as usual, they got what they demanded. This led especially to Turkish workers having their wives follow them and found families here.

Western Germany called for workers, and what it received were humans. Who would have wanted to deny them in their desire to bring their families with them?

It was always clear from the very beginning that every migration to the GDR was to be for a limited time and was to end with remigration.

Only in 1973, under the Social-Democtrat lead government of Chancellor Willy Brandt,102 a Socialist dissident who fled from National Socialist Germany to Scandinavia, was the guest worker agreement with Turkey stopped, meaning no new hiring of Turkish workers for the German industry.103

It is a very interesting subject of study, how the internationalist Marxist communist governments acted sometimes in highly nationalistic (in the various meanings of this word from Hegelian and Schmittian up to Ethnonationalist) ways, with endless examples not just in the context of the system conflict of the Cold War but also between each other (Yugoslavia vs the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union vs. China, etc.) but also internally ( inter-Soviet migration or immigration within the present day People’s Republic of China). Arthur Moeller van den Bruck104 and Ernst Niekisch105 greet one another from the grave. The nationalist character of many of these polices however does not attest to their moral quality. The Soviet Holodomor against the Ukranians speaks here for itself. Also it doesn’t mean that Marxist systems are secretly crypto-nationalist. It merely means that the question of control over the means of production does not have to translate into unlimited international solidarity and the abolishment of nation itself.

In comparison to Eastern Europe, all the developments inspired by the New Left, and especially in academia and the media, did not take place in Eastern Germany. This chapter of post-War Western German history has much to teach in terms of strategy; Rudi Dutschke’s106 slogan of ‘the long march through the institutions107’ is alone highly inspirational, especially since it was by far more successful than any revolutionary violence by the far-left RAF.108 The peaceful way of the New Left has been largely successful in Germany, to such a degree that they could almost achieve anything in the non-economic spheres of culture and politics. The author wonders if they would have achieved even more if they had not been discredited in part by both RAF terrorist violence and the economic stagnation in Eastern Germany as a negative example for a Marxist economic and political order. It was quite common in Germany to silence anyone who criticized the economics of Western Germany by saying, without bothering to consider the critique itself, ‘If you don’t like it here go over there’109 (meaning, to the GDR of course).

But leaving aside the question of the particular history of Eastern Germany, critique of Angela Merkel’s migration policy is not just to that part of the country alone. Indeed, it is also interesting to look at the voices within the political mainstream across the spectrum that are critical of Merkel’s migration policies in present-day Germany. Noteworthy here are a number of names, all of them having received huge backlash from within their parties and huge support from the normal population:

• Thilo Sarazin110 (Social democrat, and a strong critic of present-day migration long before 2015);

• Sarah Wagenknecht111, 112, 113 (former leader of the THE LEFT party parliamentary group);

• Boris Palmer114 (Green Party, Mayor of Thuebingen and probably the only dissident voice in his party).

Sarah Wagenknecht, herself of Eastern German and Persian heritage, is an especially tragic example; she gave up her post as leader of her parliamentary fraction as a result of being permanently under attack by large parts of her own party, for heretically demanding to keep immigration under control, and warning of the toll that it takes on the lower parts of the socio-economic spectrum of the German population. Nevertheless she is to this day far more popular than her own party, as a result of her being perhaps the most intellectually well-armed politician in the German parliament. The author always listens to her with great attention, as her analysis of present day geopolitical politics and free-trade capitalist policies are mostly spot-on, and far deeper than anything the AfD or other parties deliver on almost every issue. Her way of analyzing the driving factors of migration (arms export, free trade agreements, US military engagement out of Western German bases) alone makes it worthwhile to listen to her.

Her analysis of why her party, which has been in a way the socialist equivalent for Eastern Germany to the Lega Nord in Italy for most of its existence, lost this status in the last state elections in Eastern Germany is worth studying, especially when it comes to the milieus that her party aimed to win and/or lost. Apparently they lost parts of their base (disadvantaged and economically weak regions, the unemployed, impoverished pensioners etc.) by aiming for the economically successful academic left-leaning metropolitan population.115, 116 Her critique extends to the way migration is approached by her party, but it also extends to other fields, e.g. taxation on carbon dioxide and the effects this taxation would have on the lower ends of the income scale.

The author also does not want to miss the opportunity to pay tribute to the late Guido Westerwelle,117 the former German minister of foreign affairs from 2009 to 2013 and an outspoken Classical Liberal. In this function, he vivaciously opposed the regime-change policy in Libya as well as he was able to against both internal and external critique. Had he been heeded, the African part of the ongoing Migrant crisis would have been presumably reduced and many lives spared. That he did not succeed in his opposition118 does not diminish the man but rather elevates him. Opposing France, Britain and the US in German and lastly European interest has not brought him any gratitude in life. May he find peace in whatever lies beyond.

So, in the light of the above, should we exculpate certain protagonists and ideologies of recent history? Or are they solely to blame? Will some of Angela Merkel’s harshest critics even feel some nostalgia for her and her unideological administrative approach in a few years’ time? And do these questions even matter? If anything, the author hopes to have shown that the recent history of Germany is anything but uncomplicated, and that understanding it takes some effort before the question of guilt can be raised at all. But rather than merely gazing into the past, the effort of understanding is necessary for the accomplishment of any future changes. Let’s not be too lazy to do the work we have to do here.


]]> 8
The European Way – What I Have Learned from Arktos This Year Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:54:04 +0000 Advent is upon us. Ordinarily, we would have reflected upon the past year, as we venture closer to the Winter Solstice and the birth of our Lord. Today, we are seldom close to nature and her cycles, not to speak of finding time for reflection – bare necessities that the corruption of modernity rarely affords. I don’t know about you, but upon turning to these twelve months of 2019 and the wall-calendar, ruined by innumerable scribbles of business, I found that I could not get Arktos out of my mind. Was it because they had published my book earlier this year (which I cannot fail to shamelessly plug here)? Rather, it was for this: what I have learned from the shared spirit of the various writers of Arktos has led me, and I venture to say all of us, to think of our people across time – not past and future in terms of a quantified scale of events, but as a living, ongoing narrative. So, what have I learnt from Arktos, from this loose band of European men, reaching out to each other, to our shared essence, toward an answer to the question of who we are and where we are going?

One thing is for sure: we do not feel at home. Have we ever? Shall we ever? The answer, we seem to find, is, ‘Perhaps, no.’ Yet, the drive onwards remains – we leap upstream, toward the sun, in a river that runs out toward perfectability. We know what we are doing even if we can’t articulate it yet; the spirit within us is the whole glorious, beautiful, joyful yet solemn exercise, proceduralised. What we are doing at Arktos is attempting said articulation. And, no, this is not an analysis made in the spirit of modernity that we so loathe – we are not reducing the European psyche to a mere computer with a camera or programming or what have you. We are more Platonic than that. The very reason we are striving and bounding upwards in body, mind and spirit is because we are perceiving something beyond. Our very souls are in no wise contented to stop at the categorisation of ‘things’, quantifiable things which can be plotted on a scale, just as the apogee of the era – this scientistic empiricism at the heart of the modern liberal democratic beast from below – has sought to do with everything, and most with especially with us. And what of the unquantifiable that is both bursting out of the heart of the European spirit and flooding in from beyond, past what I can reach out and grasp with my hand, far further yet from what I can abstract with my mind? I’m not simply talking about, say, our categorisation of apples and oranges into ‘fruit’ – as generic and impossible to comprehend as imagining a generic piece of ‘furniture’ without simply picturing the tables and chairs which comprise that category in our brains. What of beauty, goodness and truth? These defy modernity, refusing to be contained – and so do we, for these three qualia characterise us and we, them, in that uncanny, supernatural dance which we call European civilisation.

And what is that civilisation, for all my talk of articulating the idealistic quest of the European spirit? The answer has been with us for so long and is still present within, even after it has become verboten for the plague of bien pensants. Ingrained in us is our instinct that our civilisation and the cosmos itself is an analogy of the Logos, the higher order that is imperfectly animated in the natural order of our world, just as our cathedrals’ artistry is a picture of the heavenly, or as, to paraphrase Plato, time is the moving picture of eternity. Of course, our civilisation is not identical to the ideal, but like a piece of art, it points to its author: as St Augustine was able to put into words for us in The City of God, the spirit that built our Christendom was not in the hearts of all European men, but in its composite our civilisation, the spirit and city of European man pointed to the Spirit of beauty and truth, however inexactly they depicted these things in the world.

Dark, alien forces have turned our warriors into mercenary bands employed by modern states, satisfying the warmongering lusts of strangers over lands where the blood and bones of our ancestors do not rest.

But, how was this manifested by our ancestors, and how are we innately and tropistically seeking to manifest it today? A naturally recurring theme among us is that of the class division of our people. No, I am not referring to any modernist conceptions of economic classes etc. I am speaking of the tripartite, traditional division of our people. Of course, this is not to dismiss the way that Europeans have been libertarian in our jurisprudence, resulting from the relatively noble quality of our men and our ability to develop networks of patriarchal, sovereign authorities, from the village and guild up to the emperor. The Catholic Church has since systematised this behaviour into what we now call subsidiarity, and which, when actually applied, has proven the healthiest political model in modern Europe. Thus, what we really need are more European babies with wholesome, traditional upbringings, and fewer social engineers but I digress. Other than vertical divisions of authority, the tripartite separation of our people is vital: a division into the spiritual, Oratores: “those who pray”; the warrior, Bellatores: “those who fight”; and the worker, Laboratores: “those who work”. Above all, I am delighted by the number of Arktos writers inspiring the warrior soul of our people; the sacred, kingly spirit of the knight needs as much encouragement as it can get. In order to reclaim these three estates, we will need wills of steel as well as fiery hearts. Not to speak of what has happened to our dehumanising markets and the secularising, degenerating of our culture, what has happened to our warriors is diabolical. Dark, alien forces have turned them into mercenary bands employed by modern states, satisfying the warmongering lusts of strangers over lands where the blood and bones of our ancestors do not rest. Our current situation is an all-round abomination.

What then can we expect from the future of Arktos? The real question is: what can we expect from the future of our people? Not only do I hope we will begin to abandon the dehumanising, derogatory, modern concepts with which we are labelled – as for instance the American category of ‘white’, which does our ancestors’ unsearchably deep cultures grave injustice. To me, taking a European American boy and labelling him by the colour of his skin relative to another people his ancestors never knew is impious; indeed, it seems almost blasphemous to me. We are European! You do not have the time in your short life to measure the meaning of that word. That is who I am and you will sooner wrestle my soul from my body than take that identity from me. Part of developing our holistic, cultural character and being will mean restoring the aspects of us as a collective people. We must start with ourselves as a proper subject, including our subject-subject and subject-object relationships.

I would go so far as to say that a re-nomadisation of bands of men to live on the move may keep the warrior class in touch which the ancient Indo-European roots of our ancestors.

Our loss of our spirituality is at the root of our idolatrous consumeristic cycles; we perpetuate endless desire with desperate shopping habits, viewing ourselves as replaceable economic units within a machine – for that is all the Leviathan nation state has become. To restore our understanding of ourselves being within a comprehensible world and to restore our sense of being consumed by and for one another, we must embrace our spiritual traditions; the Mass comes to mind, in particular, as the explicit union of our souls into one people, one person even. Following this, we can look beyond mere market mentality and regain our sense of collective purpose and no longer see each other as mere competitors for scarce resources, but understand that the fundamental nature of man is not red in tooth and claw as modernity has indoctrinated us to believe. To the contrary, we have to accept that the highest nature and culture of European man is fabulously lovely, and not at all like the perversion we have come to accept as given.

With proper subject and object relations enculturated, this might yet inspire us to review our sense of war, defending what we know to be right in the face of these violations of our sacred values. The disturbing of God’s peace by heresy and the disturbing of God’s peace by brigandage were not separate matters to our ancestors. Markets have proven to sell out our sacredness to the worst profanity and must be tempered by that masculine warrior ethic which keeps our men from accumulating power through economic means, these being little more than the accumulation of ease, weakness, effeminacy and corruption – the vice of the bourgeois. We needn’t wonder why our society, in which there is no place for the spiritual and warrior class, but only the bourgeoisie of the worker class, has become almost void of traditional masculinity. We must restore our warrior class if we are to defend our culture, and restore our spiritual class in order to have a cultural framework to defend. Fellow Arktos writers have even suggested diets and lifestyles for doing so; I would go so far as to say that a re-nomadisation of bands of men to live on the move as do many Mongolians, may keep the warrior class in touch with the ancient Indo-European roots of our ancestors.

Whatever the future holds for our people (and vice versa), we stand aside from the world this Advent, at least in spirit; we see the zombified emptiness of black friday consumers, their abuse by the Sarumans of the world, and the casting of our warriors into the literal gutter of the maddening road to a dishonourable death. So let us reflect at this time, curl up with a few good Arktos titles and take courage – we have the hope of new life ahead of us.

]]> 3